TITLE: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Governing Irish Prisons – the ideologies, values,
characteristics of and challenges faced by governors in the Irish Prison Service.
Candidate number – Pen 1106
Richard Roche
Homerton College
Cambridge
Supervisor: Dr. Caroline Lanskey
Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Applied
Criminology, Penology and Management 2012.
Student Declaration
I declare that this thesis does not exceed more than 18,000 words in length (including
notes, but excluding the appendices and bibliography). I certify that this thesis does not
incorporate any material that has been previously, or is concurrently being submitted for
any other reason other than the Master of Studies examination. Except as indicated by
specific references to or acknowledgements of other sources this thesis is my own
original work.
The views and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Irish Prison Service.
______________________________________
Richard Roche
December 2012.
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to the following persons
who have made the completion of this thesis possible:
My supervisor, Dr. Caroline Lanskey, for her vital guidance, advice and support.
The governor of the Irish Prison Service College, John McGuckin M.Sc. for his unwavering
assistance, mentoring and for making this adventure possible.
The lecturers and staff of the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge for their insights,
wisdom and enthusiasm for education.
My fellow students, particularly Dale and Kilvinder for the help, inspiration and warm
friendship they extended.
The staff of the Irish Prison Service training and development centre for their constant
support and encouragement.
The governors of the Irish Prison Service, particularly my interviewees, they are doing a
tough job in tough times. They have my deepest admiration and respect.
Particularly to my family, most especially Liz, Josh, Jack and Hannah.
And to my wife and best friend, Nicky, who makes all things possible. God only knows….
3
Abstract
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” is an idiomatic Latin expression attributed to the Roman
poet Juvenal which literally translates as "Who is to guard the guards themselves?"
(Isenberg, 2010). Despite the pivotal role that prison governors play in determining the
contours of prison life for staff and prisoners, no empirical study has been conducted to
date to determine the backgrounds, ideologies, motivations and values of prison
governors in the Republic of Ireland. This area of study is important as governors play a
seminal role in shaping and implementing penal policy.
The objective of this research is to bridge that gap and to contribute to existing
penological and criminological literature. The author conducted an interview - based case
study with fifteen senior governors in the Irish Prison Service in order to understand how
their personal qualities and ideologies shaped their approach to managing prisons.
The findings indicate that contemporary developments in the management of Irish prisons
have had a considerable impact on how Irish prison governors define their role and
purpose and provides an insight into how the process of change is being accomplished,
and at what cost.
4
Table of Contents
Page
Student Declaration
2
Acknowledgements
3
Abstract
4
Table of Contents
5
List of Tables
6
List of Acronyms
7
Section One - Introduction
1.1 Introduction and Background
8
1.1.1 Governors’ Responsibilities
10
1.1.2 A Time of Transformation and Change
11
Section Two - Literature Review
2.1 The Pivotal Role of a Governor
13
2.2 The Critical Importance of Values
17
Section Three - Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
23
3.2 Research Design
23
3.3 Sampling
24
3.4 Research Methodology
25
3.5 Data Analysis
27
3.6 Ethical Considerations
28
3.7 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Practitioner Research
30
Section Four – Findings and Discussion
4.0 Who are the Governors?
4.1 Introduction
32
4.1.2 Sex, ethnicity and socio-economic backgrounds
32
4.1.3 Education
35
5
Table of Contents
Page
Section Four – Findings and Discussion Continued
4.2 Motivations and job satisfaction
4.2.1 Introduction
37
4.2.2 Motivations for joining the prison service
37
4.2.3 Current motivations and job satisfaction
38
4.3 Defining the role of governor
42
4.4 Ethics, values and ideologies
4.4.1 Introduction
43
4.4.2 Where did their value framework come from?
43
4.4.3 What values do they hold to be important?
44
4.4.4 Predominant ideology
45
4.4.5 Do their values and ideologies shape the contours of their prison?
48
i) Walking the floor
48
ii) Governors parades and disciplinary reports
50
iii) Managing and developing staff
52
Section Five – Conclusions and Recommendations
5.0 Conclusions and recommendations
55
List of Tables
Table one: Current dispersion of governor grades within the Irish prison service
9
Table two: Salary details of IPS governors
35
References
58
6
Appendices
Appendix I Revised campus governance model
63
Appendix II Initial interview sample
64
Appendix III Interview schedule
66
Appendix IV Letter to participants
69
Appendix V Consent form
71
Appendix VI Governor grade demographics: secondary data analysis
73
List of Acronyms
DJE - Department of Justice and Equality
DPER - Department of Public Expenditure and Reform
HMP - Her Majesty’s Prisons
ICT - Information and Communication Technologies
IPS - Irish Prison Service
IPSTDC- Irish Prison Service Training and Development Centre
OSG - Operational Support Group
POA - Prison Officers Association
PSA - Public Service Agreement
PSEC - Prison Service Escort Corps
ROI - Republic of Ireland
UK - United Kingdom
USA - United States of America
7
SECTION ONE - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction and Background
In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), as in many other developed countries, deprivation of
liberty is the ultimate sanction for those who transgress the law. The day to day
implementation of this sanction is managed by the Irish Prison Service (IPS), an executive
agency of the Department of Justice and Equality (DJE). The Director General of the IPS
reports directly to the Minister of the DJE and is supported by six directorates,
Operations, Finance, Care and Rehabilitation, Estate Management and ICT, Human
Resources and Corporate Affairs. Nine ‘governing’ governors report directly to the
Director General and bear responsibility for managing the complex daily strategic and
operational aspects of fourteen prisons across the ROI. The governing governors comprise
of various governor grades1 - Campus Governor, Governor II and Governor III, the level of
which is dependent on the size and complexity of the institution. Unlike the UK, the ROI
does not have a direct entry route to governor level. Therefore, all current serving
governors have started their careers as recruit prison officers. The exception to this
traditional career route to governor, which perhaps indicates the level of change
occurring within the IPS, is the newly introduced grade of campus governor. The grade of
campus governor is now the most senior operational grade in the IPS and was introduced
to facilitate campus governance management structures which will provide financial
savings and to facilitate the further expansion of shared services on each prison campus.
The serving governor of Mountjoy Prison was appointed as campus governor for the
Mountjoy campus in March 2012. Shortly following his appointment, the posts of campus
governor at Midlands/Portlaoise and Wheatfield/Cloverhill prisons were advertised by the
Public Appointments Service in an open, external competition. Subsequent to this open
competition, two serving governor I grades were appointed to the role of campus
governor, despite the high level of interest external to IPS. However, this break from the
traditional route to governor has heralded a new approach for the IPS in two areas, the
move towards open recruitment and a move towards campus governance. The
appointment of three campus governors was aimed at advancing the introduction of new
1
There are currently no governor I grades in the Irish prison service following the introduction of campus
governance. However, two governor I posts have been approved for IPS HQ in the operations and human
resources directorates but have not been filled to date.
8
campus structures within these prisons, with eight separate prison management
structures being combined into three amalgamated campus management structures (see
revised IPS campus governance model attached in appendix I). The three recently
appointed campus governors head the larger prisons in Ireland; Dublin West Campus,
comprising of Wheatfield and Cloverhill prisons; Mountjoy Campus, comprising of
Mountjoy prison, St. Patricks institution, the Dóchas Centre and the Training Unit; and the
Portlaoise Campus, which comprises of the Midlands prison and Portlaoise prison. Each
campus governor is supported by a deputy campus governor (at governor II level) and
various other governor grades, the numbers and grades of which are dependent on the
size and function of the prison. Other Irish prisons such as Cork, Limerick, and Castlerea
are managed by grade II governors and the remainder - Loughan House, Shelton Abbey
and Arbour Hill are managed by a grade III governor. Prison support units such as the
Operational Support Group, the Prison Service Escort Corps, Building Services Division and
the Training and Development Centre are also managed by a grade III governor.
Mountjoy Campus
Mountjoy Prison
St. Patricks
Dóchas Centre
Training Unit
Dublin West Campus
Wheatfield
Cloverhill
Portlaoise Campus
Midlands
Portlaoise
Cork Prison
Limerick Prison
Castlerea
Loughan House
Arbour Hill
Shelton Abbey
OSG
IPSTDC
Campus
Governor
1
Governor
I
Governor
II
Governor
III
Deputy
Governor
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Asst Governor
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table one: Current dispersion of governor grades within the Irish Prison Service
(The current staffing level of governor grades in the IPS illustrated in table one above is currently in
transition and has changed since initial invitations to interview were sent. Figures are correct as of
November 2012).
9
1.1.1 – Governors’ responsibilities
Governors in the ROI are appointed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence and
their statutory functions are contained in statutory instrument No. 252 of 2007 - Prison
Rules, 2007 (House of the Oireachtas, 2007), government and IPS policies and other
pertinent legislation. The 2007 Irish Prison Rules firmly establish the unambiguously
central role of the governor in the management of all dimensions of the prison (Irish
Prison Service, 2007). However, reading the formal responsibilities of their role as
articulated in the prison rules does not capture the complexity of a governor’s daily work.
Prison governors have particularly onerous responsibilities when compared to any other
equivalent role in the private sector. They are charged with maintaining safe and secure
custody, dignity of care and rehabilitation to prisoners in the often dangerous, complex
environment of a prison (Irish Prison Service, 2012). Their responsibilities include
managing 3248 prison staff across the prisons estate and for ensuring that the 4306
prisoners in custody (23rd November 2012) are treated in a manner which supports the
IPS’s mission, vision and values. The prison rules do not reflect the change in their
traditional roles brought about by contemporary developments in the IPS. Following his
appointment in December 2011, the Director General of the IPS, Mr Michael Donnellan
released the IPS 3 year strategic plan 2012 – 2015 in order to make public the high level
objectives and key strategic actions the IPS intends to take during the period (Irish Prison
Service, 2012). The IPS asserts that the strategy is ‘underpinned by the principles of dignity
and respect’ and that these values are central to the objectives laid out in the document
during the term of the plan (Irish Prison Service, 2012). The strategy also introduces a
new mission statement for the service, to “provide safe and secure custody, dignity of
care and rehabilitation to prisoners for safer communities” and a new vision of “a safer
community through excellence in a prison service built on respect for human dignity.”
(Irish Prison Service, 2012). The strategic actions identified in the plan include, inter alia;
reducing the number of prisoners in custody; enhancing prisoner programmes; devising
specific strategies for vulnerable prisoners; consolidating prison legislation; and “reengineering the service to facilitate the principles of normalisation, progression and
reintegration of offenders” (Irish Prison Service, 2012, p. 27).
10
1.1.2 A Time of Transformation and Change
``It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful
of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things''.
Niccolò Machiavelli2
Ensuring that the values and high level objectives expressed in the IPS strategic plan are
achieved and embedded at the ‘coal face’ is a complex task. This task is further
complicated by contemporary challenges for the IPS such as implementing the Public
Service or ‘Croke Park’ agreement. The Public Service Agreement (PSA) came about
following the financial crisis of the mid-2000s. As a result of worsening economic
conditions, the Irish Government published a plan for public sector reform - ‘The
Programme for Government’ (Department of the Taioseách, 2011). The programme for
government established the foundation for wide-ranging scrutiny of public expenditure, a
reduction in staffing and improving productivity and performance. The PSA was
implemented as a result of the programme for government and expresses a commitment
between the Irish government and sections of the public service to work in partnership in
order to introduce financial and procedural efficiencies (DPER, 2012). The PSA contains a
specific programme for the IPS and recognises that the IPS had already undertaken a
substantial transformation in 2005 (Irish Prison Service, 2012). As a result of the PSA, the
IPS is currently undergoing what must be the most transformational period of its long
history. IPS implementation of the PSA is based on the premise that current staffing levels
and rosters are no longer economically feasible and require transformation (Irish Prison
Service, 2012). In addition, the PSA requires that any changes that are introduced must
not have a negative impact on security or on the regimes available to prisoners. As a
result, one of the principal challenges for Irish prison governors is to resolve complex
issues such as reduced staffing, reduced budgets, implementation of revised rosters, the
introduction of new prison service grades and other operational challenges presented by
the PSA without causing a reduction in service for the prisoners in their care. To further
complicate the issue, other contemporary challenges for the service such as
overcrowding, increased scrutiny from external agencies and an amplified focus on
performance management has created an environment where strong leadership from
2
The Prince and the Discourses - The Modern Library, Random House, Inc., 1950, Page 21, Chapter VI.
11
governors is vital to ensure that the values articulated in the strategic plan are embedded
in the organisation. The need for strong leadership in a time of change is discussed by
Coyle (2008, p. 244) where he asserts that “change needs to be set in the context of an
agreed set of ethical values linked to clear leadership”. Coyle goes on to claim that if this
is the case, the change process will “lead to better managed prisons, which are more
secure, safer and more effective; in which there is a respect for decency and humanity”
(Coyle, 2008, p. 244). The Irish Prison Service has clearly established its corporate ethical
values in the 3 year strategic plan. In order for the plan to be effective, it will require the
support of moral ‘champions’ within the IPS. It is therefore important for the IPS to
determine the ethical base and motivations of our senior operational managers in light of
contemporary challenges to the service and in light of the values espoused in the IPS 3
year strategic plan.
12
SECTION TWO - LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review explores dominant themes relating to the central role a governor
plays in a prison, the complexity of the work they do and the influence they have in
determining the ethical framework of their prisons.
2.1 The pivotal role of a governor
Recent years have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of imprisonment as a sanction
in the ROI and the prison population has grown dramatically. This growth represents a
32% increase in the country’s prison population in the past five years with an increase
from 3,321 in 2007 to 4,389 in 2011 (Deegan, 2012). During this period the overall
number of committals to Irish prisons has also grown considerably, from 11,934 in 2007
to 17,318 in 2011, representing a 45% growth (Deegan, 2012).
Deprivation of liberty is an undoubtedly weighty punitive penalty and the ‘pains of
imprisonment’ have been well documented (Sykes, 1958; Cohen & Taylor, 1972; Johnson,
1996; Crewe, 2011). Goffman’s (1961) depiction of a prison as a ‘total institution’
illustrates some the difficulties prisoners face such as being isolated from the rest of
society, losing their autonomy and being restricted from sustaining relationships with
family and friends. Goffman describes prison as a “total institution…where a large number
of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of
time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life” (1961, p. 11). It is
apparent to the author that Goffman’s definition could be applied equally to prison staff
and management also as they spend a great deal of their working lives in what Foucault
calls the “the darkest region in the apparatus of justice” (1979, p. 256).
Despite the increased use of imprisonment in contemporary society, the “depth, weight
and tightness” (Crewe, 2011) of the sanction and regardless of the pivotal role that prison
governors play in determining the contours of prison life for staff and prisoners alike, little
is known about the men and women who manage the state’s prisons on our behalf. To
date, the core focus of sociological research on what Clemmer (1940) called the ‘prison
community’ in penal institutions has been largely confined to the study of prisoners (e.g.
Clemmer, 1940; Sykes, 1958; Irwin, 2009; Crewe, 2009) encompassing a multitude of
areas including examining prisoners sub cultures, their origins, and reporting on their
attitudes, sex lives and addictions. In contrast, fewer studies have been conducted on the
13
prison staff who are integral members of this community. The studies that have looked at
the role, experiences and influence that staff have within prisons (e.g. Thomas, 1972;
Kauffman, 1988; Crawley, 2004; Liebling, et al., 2011) have seldom included research on
governors, with some notable exceptions (e.g. Bryans, 2007; Crewe & Liebling, 2011;
Liebling, et al., 2011; Liebling & Crewe, forthcoming). The substantial research focus on
prisoners and prison officers is not suprising. Coyle expresses that the two most
significant groups in a prison are frontline staff and prisoners and that the key to a well
managed prison is the quality of the relationship between these two key groups (Coyle,
2002, p. 13). From a staff perspective, Liebling and Price (2001) assert that the role of
prison officer is arguably the most important in a prison and this assertion is supported by
the author’s professional experience and opinion. However, prison officers must be
strategically led, guided and supported by the prison’s senior management team. Liebling
and Price cite that prison officers described that life was ‘at it’s best’ for them when they
were being supported by their managers (Liebling & Price, 2001, p. 192). They also
illustrate that a “strong and well liked management team can transform a prison, and
provide the kind of leadership staff respond to well” (Liebling & Price, 2001, p. 184). Their
study highlights that the legitimate authority and good practical and interpersonal skills of
governors ‘gives shape’ to a prison officer’s daily work.
Prison governors carry out an extremely complex task in fulfilling the objectives of
contemporary imprisonment. They are charged to manage the punishment of prisoners
on behalf of the state by depriving them of their liberty and to rehabilitate them, all
whilst maintaining good order, safe custody and providing constructive regimes for those
in their care, a complexity of tasks which are illustrated by Sykes;
“Somehow [the administrator of the maximum-security prison] must resolve the claims
that the prison should exact vengence, erect a specter to terrify the actual or potential
deviant, isolate the known offender from the free community, and effect a change in the
personality of his captives so that they gladly follow the dictates of the law – and in
addition maintain order within his society of prisoners and see that they are employed at
useful labour” (Sykes, 1958, p. 18).
Notwithstanding that Sykes work was carried out in the 1950s within a maximum prison
in the USA, his observations still ring true today. In contemporary society governors also
14
have primary responsibility to protect the rights of and manage some of the most
marginalised members of society within their prisons. In addition to shaping the ethos
and regime of their prisons governors may, on behalf of the state, exercise a large
amount of personal power over their charges. Under the Irish Prison Rules 2007,
governors may inter alia; order prisoners to be physically restrained; place them in a
special observation cell; transfer them to another prison; deny them physical contact with
their visitors; deny them recreation or association with other prisoners; strip search them
and have their possessions searched (Irish Prison Service, 2007). Governors are also
influential in any decision on whether or not a prisoner should be released temporarily
and in having prisoners transferred to open prisons, both actions which may have a
substantial impact on an individual’s prison experience.
Prison governors are also charged with maintaining the ‘quality of prison life’ and defining
the moral climate of their prisons by setting boundaries of acceptable behaviour for staff
and prisoners and determining what ‘right relationships’ are (Liebling, et al., 2011).
Ensuring that staff-prisoner relationships have the correct balance of control and respect
is a complex task. In order for staff to be empowered to use their authority professionally
in order to create decent environments requires highly skilled staff and outstanding
leadership (Liebling, et al., 2011). Within the prison, governors act as ‘social control
agents’ (Poole & Regoli, 1980) and oversee the daily life of the prisoners and staff in their
charge. The apparent dichotomy of maintaining equilibrium between supporting staff and
ensuring the fair treatment of prisoners is discussed by McDonnell (2000) who asserts
that governors must maintain a balance of leadership and management skills in order to
ensure an equitable approach;
“….a governor walking along the top of a wall, on one side are the prisoners who expect
you to be fair, on the other are your staff who expect you to be supportive. If you climb
down the wall to one side or the other for too long it could undermine your position with
the other. It is the good use of management skills and paying attention to detail that will
keep you walking along the top of the wall” (McDonnell, 2000, p. 13).
For IPS governors, maintaining this balanced approach may be further complicated by the
recent reduction in financial and staff resources available to them. For example, reducing
staff expenditure may undermine efforts to run legitimate regimes which could lead to
15
negative consequences for both prisoners and prison staff (Taylor & Cooper, 2008). Crewe
et al (2011) highlight the complex operational ‘balancing act’ faced by governors in
ensuring that prison staff continue to feel valued while endeavouring to cut costs, an
issue which is particularly salient in the contemporary Irish penal arena. Their study of
public and private prisons in the UK revealed that public sector officers often made direct
associations between their treatment and that of prisoners;
“Public sector staff appeared to have a needier relationship [when compared to private
sector staff] with their employer, regarding prisoners almost as sibling rivals in
competition for organizational attention” (Crewe, et al., 2011, p. 108).
Crewe et al conclude by illustrating the consequences of not maintaining an equilibrium
of support by asserting that difficulties arise if staff are overly anti-prisoner and antimanagement, with officers over-using their authority and distancing themselves from
prisoners. They also posit that difficulties can arise if staff are too compliant or favourable
towards managers and prisoners as staff so orientated tend to trust prisoners excessively
and avoid using their authority and highlight that a “positive staff ethos might lead to
some negative prisoner outcomes” (Crewe, et al., 2011, p. 111).
Despite their pivotal role both in their prisons and in the wider criminal justice arena,
there is a dearth of empirical data available on how governors define their roles, their
backgrounds and other influences that shape the way they do their work. The lack of
empirical research on governors is perhaps suprising as prison governors are a key
professional group within the criminal justice system and play a key role in interpreting
and communicating penal policy (Bryans, 2007). The lack of available research may be
due to the difficulty of accessing senior managers and other reasons such as security and
the time constraints imposed by busy prison schedules. Bryans (2000) states that the lack
of empirical research in the UK is due to governors not being considered as an ‘elite’
group within the criminal justice system as there does not appear to be any consistency in
governors’ social backgrounds, philosophy or education. Bryans goes on to state that
when compared to Judges, Magistrates or the Police, governors carry out their work out
of public view, and that governors themselves have resisted systematic study of their
16
work, preferring instead to characterise their work as sui generis and consequently too
intricate to describe (Bryans, 2000). Liebling and Crewe assert that the lack of empirical
study of senior prison managers is also due to the fact that “as power-holders, senior
managers appeal less to critical scholars than prisoners do” (Liebling & Crewe, 2012). The
area is in need of further study as “Governors are key actors in prisons and it is only by
understanding how prisons are governed, and by who, that we will have a better insight
into how our prisons operate” (Bryans, 2007, p. 191). The pivotal influence that governors
have within a prison environment is also articulated by Conrad (1960, p. 245) where he
states “A penal institution is the lengthened shadow of the man in charge”. This
statement is supported by Dilulio who asserts that “prison management may be the single
most important determinant of the quality of prison life” (Dilulio, 1987, p. 255). Dilulio
goes on to assert that “if most prisons have failed, it is because they have been illmanaged, under-managed or not managed at all” (Dilulio, 1987).
2.2 The critical importance of values
It is widely accepted in the existing literature that governors play a seminal role within
their prisons and have considerable influence in defining the contours of prison life for
both the staff and prisoners under their care. There have been a number of studies of
senior prison managers in the United States covering broad issues such as Dilulio’s (1987)
comparative study of correctional management, Cullen et al’s (1993) study of the
correctional orientation of prison wardens and Moster and Jelic’s (2009) study on prison
wardens’ attitudes towards prison rape and assault. However, little is known of the values
and beliefs that influence the work of prison governors. This is perhaps surprising, as it is
generally accepted that a principled framework is essential for the ethical management of
prisons (Coyle, 2008). In most developed democratic countries international human rights
frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, constitutional and common
law underpin and preserve the values of society (Council of Europe, 2010) . Coyle (2002)
posits that the most significant of these values is respect for the innate dignity of all
members of society regardless of their social status. He asserts that the ultimate test for
this value lies in the way that society protects the dignity of those who have transgressed
against society’s laws. This philosophy is also supported by Mandela;
17
“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside the jails. A nation
should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones” (Mandela,
1994, p. 233).
Coyle (2002) argues the importance of operating within an ethical framework, especially
when one group holds significantly more power than another. He states that without an
ethical framework this situation can easily lead to an abuse of power and that “the ethical
basis of imprisonment needs to pervade the management process from the top down”
(Coyle, 2002, p. 13). Coyle goes on to assert that those who manage prisons should look
beyond technical processes and procedures and articulates that prison governors must
be;
“... leaders who are capable of enthusing the staff for whom they are responsible with a
sense of value in the way they carry out their difficult daily tasks...” (Coyle, 2002, p. 13).
Coyle states that first line staff in prisons will only be able to maintain their commitment
to respecting the dignity and rights of people in their care if they get a “clear and
consistent message from those in charge of the system that this is an imperative” (Coyle,
2002, p. 15).
The importance of establishing a leader’s professional background, influences and
personal values is discussed by Davis;
“If the leader is a great person, then inspiring ideas will permeate the corporation’s
culture. If the leader is mundane, then the guiding beliefs may well be uninspired. Strong
beliefs make for strong cultures. The clearer the leader is about what he stands for, the
more apparent will be the culture of that company” (Davis, 1984, p. 8).
Brown (1998) also asserts the most influential impact on an organisations sense of moral
purpose is the management style, vision and personality of the dominant leader within
the organisation. This concept may be particularly important in prisons as although
governors are guided by a number of formal procedures, policies and legislation, they also
have opportunities to exercise their discretion in a wide variety of areas. Bryans (2007, p.
109) highlights that a governors use of this discretion is influenced in part by his or hers
underlying values and ideologies. This viewpoint is supported by Miller as he asserts that
18
“Ideology and its consequences exert a powerful influence on the policies and procedures
of those who conduct the enterprise of criminal justice” (Miller, 1973, p. 142).
However, Rutherford states that the relationship between ideology and practice is both
“complex and unpredictable” (1994, p. 2) and that senior practitioners may not make
decisions based exclusively on their ideological preferences. Rutherford posits that the
values and beliefs that shape criminal justice practitioners in the UK approach to their
work falls into three dimensions or clusters of beliefs;
“The first of these embraces the punitive degradation of offenders. The second cluster
speaks less to moral purpose than to issues of management; pragmatism, efficiency and
expediency are the themes that set the tone. Third, …there is the cluster of liberal and
humanitarian values” (Rutherford, 1994, p. 3).
Lacey (1994) highlights that Rutherford’s ‘efficiency’ (or managerialism) credo can be
combined with either credo one – ‘punishment’ or credo three – ‘care’. Liebling (2004)
asserts that the pursuit of these credos in the UK may have changed in the decade
following Rutherford’s work and that other credos have emerged, such as what Liebling
terms the ‘effectiveness’ credo (Liebling, 2004, p. 7). Crewe and Liebling (2011) also
highlight the importance of establishing senior practitioners’ orientations and ideologies
given their dual role in shaping and implementing penal policy. They assert that the
testimonies of professional ‘insiders’ such as governors are useful in order to identify the
gap between official rhetoric and what is actually happening at the ‘coal face’ of the
prison (Crewe & Liebling, 2011). Their study found that the connection between official
rhetoric and what is happening in practice in HMP is closer now than ever. The possibility
of uncovering a gap, if any, between official rhetoric and what is happening in prisons is
particularly important from an Irish context as the recently published values and mission
of the IPS clearly outline the corporate values of the organisation. Given the extent of
discretion Irish prison governors’ have in their daily work it is likely that change will not be
achieved within the organisation without their support. In this event, the published values
and mission of the IPS will be in danger of becoming what Danzon (2006), albeit from a
healthcare perspective, terms ‘a mantra rather than an agenda for action’.
19
Their study, based on interviews with eighty prison governors and directors in the UK,
explores the relationship between professional values and prison cultures as part of their
broader study of values, practices and outcomes in public and private prisons (Liebling, et
al., 2011). They found that a prison’s principles and values are largely driven by the
prisons senior management team and that the management team set the tone for staff
behaviour. The study found that managerialist reforms have resulted in a reduced range
of professional orientations as managers were recruited for their professional capabilities
rather than their values. As a result of their background and training, few managers
involved in their study had the capacity to discuss issues of penal management in any
theoretical depth. The study also found that critical philosophical thinking amongst senior
managers in the UK about what prisons are for has been replaced by management ‘speak’
and a focus on how prisons are managed. Crewe and Liebling posit that some governors
in the UK have become ‘too compliant’ with the process driven framework of this new
penology, and that they have become ineffective as dissenting voices (Crewe & Liebling,
2011). However, Coyle (2008, p. 235) asserts that how a country utilises its prisons is
likely to affect the internal management of prisons. He goes on to state that issues such
as overcrowding and a lack of resources may lead to a restriction on governors to provide
anything other than basic services for prisoners, with simply no time to achieve higher
objectives. It could therefore also be argued that senior managers in the UK are merely
fulfilling official expectations of their role and do not engage in public discourse in order
to support the system they have been charged to manage. Crewe and Liebling uphold
Lacey’s (2008) assertion that communal values, specifically attitudes towards penal
issues, are influenced by a nation’s cultural values, community and institutional
arrangements. This is reflected in their finding of what appears to be decreasing levels of
sympathy for offenders by both criminal justice professionals and the wider public (Crewe
& Liebling, 2011). Crewe and Liebling’s research builds on Bryans’ (2007) work which was
based on interviews with 42 prison governors and 10 senior ‘stakeholders’ in the UK in
the late 1990s. The main emphasis of Bryans’ study is on contemporary developments in
prison management in the UK, governor’s competences and how governors defined their
roles. Bryans found that the beliefs and language used by his interviewees reflected the
corporate values of UK prison service in the 1990s, with a focus on “performance, delivery
and managerialism” (Bryans, 2007, p. 118). Bryans hypothesises that the cohort of UK
20
prison governors appointed since 2000 may share a more managerial orientation as HMP
headquarters have adopted a more centralised managerial approach to running prisons in
the UK. Bryans’ prediction is upheld in Crewe and Liebling’s (2011) research, which
identified a move from philosophical discourse amongst governors in the UK to a more
bureaucratic managerialist language. Bryans however recognises the limitations of his
work and identifies that the prison service has changed since the 1990s and that “some
new structures and organisational changes have taken place” (Bryans, 2007, p. x).
Current research findings indicate that the ethical and moral values of a governor are a
primary factor in determining a prisons moral climate and that governor grades can play a
seminal role in ensuring that prison staff treat offenders ethically, fairly, honestly and
with dignity and respect, values articulated in the IPS 3 year strategic plan (Irish Prison
Service, 2012). However, the effectiveness of a governor’s authority in having an
influence on a prisons quality of life may depend on a match between ‘the prisons current
state, as well as their own personal and professional qualities’ (Liebling asst by Arnold,
2004, p. 426). In the UK it has been stated that some governors start their careers in the
prison service with a strong sense of moral purpose and manage to retain that sense
throughout their careers, but other governors claim that managerial challenges such as
attaining performance related goals make it impossible to retain their initial sense of
purpose (Carlen, 2002, pp. 45-46). One of the primary aims of this research project is to
ascertain the ‘ethical base’, motivations and backgrounds of ROI governors and if they
apply their personal values to their work. This objective is particularly important in light of
contemporary developments within the Irish Prison system and in light of the values
espoused in the IPS 3 year strategic plan.
It must be recognised that concepts like dignity, respect and humanity are difficult to
“operationalize and practise” (Liebling, 2011). Contemporary research on the ‘quality of
prison life’
(Liebling, 2004) provides empirical evidence that some prisons are less
damaging than others, with prisoners describing huge variations in the value frameworks
of prisons despite those prisons serving similar functions (Liebling, 2011). Liebling asserts
that the ‘differences that matter’ to prisoners incorporate;
21
”…interpersonal relationships and treatment, and the use of authority, which leads to
stark differences in perceived fairness and safety and different outcomes for prisoners,
including rates of suicide” (Liebling, 2011, p. 530).
The research discussed in this review has been conducted primarily within penal
institutions in the UK and USA. Ireland has a very small prison population when compared
to the UK or the USA, averaging 4,300, 86,400 and 2.2 million respectively (ICPS, 2012).
Consequently, this has resulted in a much lower number (14) of smaller capacity prisons
in Ireland which in turn have ‘flatter’ management structures than the UK or the USA.
One of the consequences of Ireland having only fourteen prisons and having no direct
entry at governor level is that most Irish prison managers have known and worked with
each other throughout their careers, at various different grades and roles. Another
consequence of having a small number of governors when compared to other
jurisdictions is that the Director General of the prison service and other senior managers
at headquarters level know each governor personally, and are aware of their
performance and their professional backgrounds. The relatively small scale of the Irish
penal arena when compared to other jurisdictions combined with the current financial
climate, the challenges presented under the PSA and the social and historical
backgrounds of the Irish people has given rise to a unique culture within ROI prisons. The
Irish penal system is therefore distinctive in many respects and the likelihood of
transferability of current international research findings into an Irish context is
questionable when viewed in context with the unique issues discussed above. In the ROI,
information on prison governors and their work is confined to reports, prison service job
descriptors and in one case, an autobiographical book from a former prison governor
(Lonergan, 2010). No empirical information is available on Irish prison governors’
backgrounds, values, characteristics or the challenges they face in contemporary prison
management. The objective of this research is to bridge that gap and contribute in some
small way to existing penological and criminological literature.
22
SECTION THREE - METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Questions
The overarching research question of this project is;
How do the personal qualities and ideologies of prison governors shape their approach to
the running of the prison?
This question was explored in relation to three dimensions:
The influence of governors’ personal and social backgrounds - how do governors’
perceive their age, gender and education influences their approach to their work?
Governors’ perceptions and motivations for their work - how do governors’ define
their role? What are their key motivations for their work? To what extent is their job
satisfaction affected by the contemporary developments in the IPS?
Governors’ ideologies and values - what values do governors’ hold to be important?
To what extent do these values shape the contours of the prison? Is there a gap
between ‘official rhetoric’ and governors’ personal beliefs and ideologies?
3.2 Research Design
The author was cognisant that careful deliberation of this project’s design was critical as
there were limitations on both his and the sample group’s professional schedule. Other
issues such as the potential financial cost of the research project were also taken into
consideration. Taking these issues into account, the study was constructed using an
exploratory research approach as the goal of this research was to investigate social
phenomenon in a prison setting without any preconceived expectations from the
researcher (Bachman & Schutt, 2011). A qualitative approach was adopted as the
research questions required an emphasis on depth of understanding (King & Wincup,
2008) and it is unlikely that this objective could have been achieved by employing
quantitative methods. In order to define this project, set boundaries, provide direction
and to help plan a successful research project (O'Leary, 2005) the researcher designed an
interview schedule which contained a number of open questions relating to key themes
highlighted in the literature review (see appendix III). The open nature of the interview
23
questions was maintained throughout the research process in order that identified
themes could evolve and new themes could emerge as the research proceeded (Robson,
2011). The author was influenced in his design by Stake who posits that a collective case
study “is an instrumental study extended to several cases…They are chosen because it is
believed that understanding them will lead to better understanding, perhaps better
theorizing about a still larger collection of cases” (Stake, 2005, p. 446).
3.3 Sampling
As highlighted by Bryans (2007, p. 5) one of the key issue for researchers is deciding how
to gather primary data. Given the time constraints available to interview participants, the
researcher conducted secondary data analysis of official IPS records available to him as a
practitioner-researcher to gather initial data on the ages, date of joining the service,
current location and sex of governor grades in the IPS (see Appendix VI). Data gathered
from the initial stage enabled the researcher to identify a purposive sample of governor
grades which contributed to sample generalisability, which in turn contributed to the
validity of this research. The researcher identified 30 potential participants (see appendix
II for initial interview sample methodology graph) and a letter was sent to each governor
grade identified (see appendix IV) which invited them to participate. In order to be
“sympathetic to the constraints on organisations participating in research and not inhibit
their functioning by imposing any unnecessary burdens on them” (British Society of
Criminology, 2008) the author committed to conduct any interviews at a time and venue
that met the needs of the potential participants.
Initially it was proposed to interview a cross section of governor grades, from assistant
governor to campus governor and all governor grades in between. It was also decided to
include 3 governors who work in support sections of the IPS in the sample as they play a
seminal role in shaping the ethical framework of the IPS given the high profile and
influence of their positions. With the exception of one assistant governor, only governors
from deputy governor level up responded to the invitation. This did not dilute the
generalisability or validity of the research findings, but contributed to the overall strength
of the study as the final participants were representative of various senior grades and had
a broad range of career backgrounds. As the research interviews commenced, a number
of governor grades who had not responded to the invitation contacted the author in
24
order to participate. A number of respondents said that they had spoken to other
governors who had completed their interviews and found the process interesting,
enjoyable and reflective, and that was why they wanted to participate. The researcher
commenced to conduct interviews with the 15 governors who were willing to participate.
In the final analysis the sample group comprised of 3 campus governors, 4 governor II’s, 6
governor III’s and 2 deputy governors. The sample represents all of the nine ‘governing
governors’ in the Republic of Ireland and a broad cross section of their senior managers.
3.4 Research Methodology
The researcher was influenced in his choice of methodology by Bachman and Schutt
(2011) who assert that “Exploratory research to chart the dimensions of previously
unstudied social settings and intensive investigations of the subjective meanings that
motivate individual action are particularly well served by the techniques of intensive
interviewing” (Bachman & Schutt, 2011, p. 300). This approach was appropriate as the
researcher was closely involved with the research process as it was a small scale project
and the researcher was also the interviewer (Robson, 2011, p. 285). In order to address
the research questions the researcher designed an interview schedule (see appendix III).
The interview questions were constructed paying attention to the following three
dimensions;
Personal and social background – The interview questions under this dimension
were constructed by paying heed to the hypothesis that an individual’s approach
to their work may be influenced by a number of individual factors such as their
personal and professional background, standard of education, race, gender and
age (Farkas, 2001). The researcher explored the relevance of both individual and
organisational factors in order to determine the background and influences which
have shaped the way participants approach their work.
Opinions / perceptions of their work – The interview questions in this strand were
designed to establish participants’ interpretation of their work and to ascertain if
contemporary developments in the Irish penal arena have had an impact on their
motivation and job satisfaction. The questions were designed to uncover what
tasks participants considered important in their day to day work, if they took a
25
philosophical approach to their work or if they are just ‘caught up’ in the day to
day demands of their role. The researcher also wished to uncover ‘who they are’,
how they define their role, their professional orientations etc. as their beliefs and
orientations shape their approach to the work that they do (Rutherford, 1994).
Ideologies and Values – The questions under this dimension were shaped to
determine the participants’ ideologies and values as each governor interviewed
has a dual role in shaping and implementing penal policy. Establishing the
participants’ sense of 'moral purpose' was important as governors define the
moral climate of their prisons by setting boundaries of acceptable behaviour for
staff and prisoners and by determining what ‘right relationships’ are. It was
particularly important for the IPS to determine the ‘ethical base’, motivations etc.
of governors in light of the values espoused in the IPS 3 year strategic plan. Some
questions in this dimension were designed to uncover the extent to which
governors applied their personal values to their work (i.e. the extent of their
professional discretion), and if their values have changed over time in light of
contemporary developments. An underlying strand of all the questions in each
dimension was to uncover if participants were orientated towards philosophical /
academic discourse or if they employed the ‘management speak’ of a purely task
orientated leader.
It was anticipated that some supplementary questions would be asked depending on how
interviewees’ responded and the specific wording and order of the research questions
would be modified depending on the ‘flow’ of the interview. This was reflected in the
researcher’s experience when conducting the interviews as some unforeseen interesting
topics were presented by a number of early participants which resulted in the researcher
‘reworking’ some questions to explore the issues they raised. The researcher selected an
intensive interview approach in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the
interviewees’ values, perceptions and experiences as it was unlikely this could be
achieved with more structured methods. However, Reiner asserts that ‘all interviews are
inevitably a form of reciprocal impression management’ (Reiner 1991, quoted in Bryans,
2007 p. 9). It is possible therefore that some participants were less than frank as the
researcher is in a central position within the IPS and the chances were that they would
26
see him again, rather than an outsider whom they would never meet again. Recognising
the limitations that being a practitioner researcher presents, the researcher recognised
that some governor grades may have told him what ‘he wanted to hear’ and some may
have made controversial comments aimed at the audience who may read this research.
These potential issues were not reflected in the researcher’s interview experience as the
majority of participants disclosed information at various stages of the interview that was
less than flattering to them personally. With the exception of one participant, it appeared
to the researcher that the majority of the sample responded to interview questions
openly, honestly and candidly. The participant that did not engage fully seemed to be
concerned with his professional image and answered almost all of the interview questions
in a hesitant, guarded manner.
The average length of each interview was 90 minutes, and all interviews were undertaken
by the researcher in conditions of absolute privacy. The interviews were conducted either
in the participating governor’s private office or in the researcher’s private office in the IPS
training and development centre. It is noteworthy that all of the interviews that took
place in a governor’s office were interrupted, in some cases three or four times, by staff
looking for guidance or clarification on a number of operational issues. Those that took
place in the researcher’s office were not interrupted. This highlights the ‘accessibility’ of
governors in the sample and perhaps illustrates the dependency of staff on the central
figure of the governor. The author conducted each interview personally in order to
ensure the consistency of each interview, which in turn should contribute to the validity
and reliability of the participants’ responses.
3.5 Data Analysis
The researcher took a systematic approach in analysing the qualitative data gathered
from the interviews as he was cognisant that “serious and detailed attention needs to be
given to the principles of his analysis” (Robson, 2011, p. 466). In order to record any initial
perceptions of the data obtained the researcher compiled a written summary of each
recorded interview directly after it took place. Transcripts of the interviews were
produced and computer text files were stored on a secure CPU in the researcher’s office
for each individual interview. The author personally transcribed the majority of the
interviews in order to become more familiar with the data gathered. Given the time
27
constraints of the author’s professional schedule, it was necessary to have a number of
the transcripts produced using the services of a professional agency. Following the
delivery of transcripts from the agency the author recognised that there were
considerable benefits to be gleaned by completing all further transcripts himself as
familiarity with the data was central to optimising the potential of the data gathered. To
further the researcher’s knowledge of the data set, the author played the recorded
interview files at every opportunity possible. This strategy paid dividends and resulted in
the researcher becoming very familiar with the data as time went on.
The researcher adopted a grounded approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to analysis which
allowed for themes to emerge from the data. In order to ensure that the approach was
systematic, the researcher coded all parts of the data that were related to the research
questions. All codes were then grouped into themes. The themes identified served as a
basis for further analysis and interpretation. McMillan and Schumacher (1993, p. 479)
assert that qualitative research is “primarily an inductive process of organising data into
categories and identifying patterns among categories.” This was reflected by this
researchers experience as meaning emerged almost organically from the data as the
process evolved.
3.6 Ethical Considerations
As the researcher is employed in the IPS training and development centre and was
interviewing staff, not prisoners, he was not obliged to formally apply to the IPS prisoner
based research ethics committee for approval. However, the researcher was aware that
qualitative research has potential to raise some complex ethical issues, especially
research involving people and took full responsibility to meet his ethical obligations. The
researcher was particularly cognisant that there is a potential for “harm, stress and
anxiety and a myriad of other negative consequences for research participants” (Robson,
2011, p. 194). Taking these potential issues into account, the researcher took what
Robson (2011) refers to as a ‘situational relativist’ approach. This approach involved the
researcher making ethical decisions based on the issues applicable to this specific
research project (Robson, 2011, p. 197). This approach is also supported by Crow et al
(2006), who assert that homogenous consent regulations should be moderated by a
degree of flexibility, dependent on the characteristics of the specific research project. In
28
order to minimise the impact of the six main ethical issues described by Bachman and
Schutt (2011, p. 297) voluntary participation, subject well-being, identity disclosure,
confidentiality, appropriate boundaries and researcher safety, the researcher designed an
information letter for potential participants (See Appendix IV) and consent form (See
Appendix V) which articulated that the research would be on a voluntary basis, and
confidentiality assured. Walker et al (2008) suggest that only a small amount of
information can be conveyed and absorbed prior to participants consenting. Therefore,
the researcher was aware that participants may have only limited understanding of his
project and their involvement, and followed up the information letter with an
abbreviated email outlining the nature of the study. Following the participants agreement
to partake in the study, in order to minimise the possibility of participant stress or
anxiety, the researcher furnished each participant with the interview schedule by internal
IPS email two days before the interview was to commence. The email outlined that the
questions were provisional and were subject to be changed based on the flow of
dialogue, but would form the basis of the conversation. The researcher also outlined the
nature of the research and the participant’s involvement in it before commencing each
interview. During this pre interview briefing, the researcher was also explicit that
participants could decide to withdraw from participation at any stage. Following the pre
interview briefing, the researcher furnished each participant with an informed consent
form (See Appendix V) and read through it with them before commencing. Following each
interview the author contacted each participant to thank them for their time and for their
contribution to the project. A number of participants (5) contacted the author to express
that they found the process interesting and that normally they would not have the time
to reflect on such issues. This was of particular solace to the author as it was a prime
objective to ensure that participants enjoyed the process in order not to ‘spoil the
research field’ for future projects.
Respecting and protecting the anonymity of the research participants was a particular
concern of the researcher. In a research project of this nature the researcher’s ability to
ensure absolute anonymity was hampered by the small sample of participants. In order to
address this issue, the researcher decided not to use consistent identifiers in this thesis as
codes may have allowed readers to identify participants by ‘linking’ quotes. For the
purpose of storing and retrieving data, the researcher assigned a random code to each
29
participant, Governor 1, Governor 2, Governor 3 etc. This code was used to title the
interview voice files on the author’s secure encrypted computer and on the subsequent
transcript files. Throughout the process of interview transcription, particularly where a
participant named an individual or a specific prison, the author removed any reference
that would enable a reader to identify the participant based on the details he / she
divulged.
Finally, the researcher was aware that his position as an employee of the IPS may in itself
present ethical issues and that he would have to guard against bias. Robson highlights
that research cannot be value free or politically neutral, and that research is “based upon
presuppositions reflecting the values and background of the researcher” (Robson, 2011, p.
225). To address the potential negative effects of this issue, the author endeavoured to
ensure that this research project is technically sound, with data appropriately collected,
analysed and interpreted.
3.7 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Practitioner Research
The role of practitioner researcher is fraught with potential difficulties and it is important
to understand the limitations that being a practitioner researcher presents. Apart from
the potential of being influenced by political sensitivities within the IPS, this practitioner
researcher could be alleged to be too ‘close’ to the subject matter to be objective. The
researcher recognised that the dangers of ‘over rapport’ with the interviewees was also
an area for concern (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983). As Bryans (2007) highlights, all
researchers have a tendency to bring their own beliefs, values and prejudices into the
research field with them. As a practitioner, the researcher endeavoured to ensure a
balanced approach by reflecting on the personal assumptions, beliefs and preconceptions
he had at each stage of the study.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the researcher’s position of what Brown (1996) calls
an ‘indigenous insider’ may have paid dividends in a number of unanticipated and
anticipated ways. Gresham Sykes highlighted that - “A prison is founded in part on secrecy
and the observer from the free community is inevitably defined as an intruder, at least
initially” (Sykes, 1958, p. xx). Due to his role as Chief Officer in the IPS training and
development centre, the author was known to all of the research participants and this
30
allowed privileged access to senior governors, access to prisons and reduced any
potential complications with security processes and procedures when conducting
interviews. The author’s role also provided access to existing data in human resources
databases and his knowledge, experience and work related insights were of considerable
benefit when designing this study and interpreting the data gathered. Reflecting Bryans’
(2007) experience, the author perceived that his position within the organisation may
have influenced participants to be more open and frank with him than they may done
with an ‘outsider’. This manifested itself in the tone of conversation during the course of
the interviews, with governors assuming that the researcher would understand what they
meant, as the following quotes indicate; and you yourself would have seen it… you and I
both know….Richie, you have seen this…. as you and I both know.… you know yourself
from dealing with prisoners…. I’m sure you have seen it yourself as a ranking officer etc.
The researchers experience reflects Marquart’s (1986) assertion that acceptance as an
insider can ensure unique data collection.
31
SECTION FOUR – RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.0 Who are the Governors?
4.1 Introduction
As illustrated by Farkas (2001) an individual’s approach to their work may be influenced
by a number of individual factors such as their age, gender, ethnic background, personal
and professional background and standard of education. This section analyses the age
profile, socio-economic, education and professional backgrounds of the sample group.
4.1.2 Sex, ethnicity and socio-economic backgrounds
The research sample group’s socioeconomic status upon joining the IPS was defined using
a number of variables including their occupation, their father’s occupation, their
education and county of residence. The research participants were from either skilled
manual (62%) or intermediate and junior non – manual backgrounds (38%). Of the 15
governors interviewed as part of this research project no participant in the sample was
representative of an ethnic minority group. Of the total 47 governors of various grades
throughout the prisons and prison support sections in the Irish Republic only 7 are female
(14.9%) and no governor is representative of an ethnic minority group. These statistics
are reflective of the general under-representation of female staff (17%) and ethnic
minority staff (0.46%) throughout the IPS (N = 3248). Governors in the sample were born
from 1952 – 1970, and the majority were over fifty years of age (83%). The age and
service profile of senior governors may be a problematic issue for the IPS. Under the
terms of their service governors may retire on full pension after thirty years of service
with the proviso that they are over fifty years of age. Some of the most senior grades
represented in the sample articulated that they were very aware that they and their
senior management teams could decide to retire at any time and that was occasionally an
issue for them when deciding who to delegate work to, as they were aware that their
management teams were overworked.
All my senior managers have their time done, and as you are aware, they’ve all
taken cuts in salary and they’re now been asked to do more. We have another
budget coming up, and if they have more taken off them….will I lose all of my senior
managers? That’s a strong possibility. Then I’ll go from a chaotic to chronic position.
32
Another implication of governors’ awareness of the ageing profile of their senior
managers is that it might detract from their long-term strategic view. The knowledge that
their staff are overworked may limit the extent to which governors’ want to introduce
initiatives which increase workloads. Following conversation around the possibility of
losing senior managers a number of governors expressed that they felt that the current
model of succession planning within the IPS is insufficient. A number of the sample stated
that local knowledge would be lost if their management teams left without passing ‘local
corporate knowledge’ on.
I can see it in all of my people, they’re overworked, overworked, and all that’s
coming down is more and more. You’ve heard of the straw that breaks the camel’s
back? Well we’ve been adjusting to this for the last three years, it can’t keep going
on. Who calls it? I don’t know. I think that people will just leave...I know colleagues
at my own grade who have just said that’s it I’m gone, my time is done. Let
somebody else take up the mantle. And that’s the biggest fear because you are
losing all that expertise, probably before time.
If you are there for a while you know all the blackguards, you know all the good guys
and you don’t have to start the learning process all over again.
Few governors in the sample explicitly expressed that their backgrounds shaped their
approach to their work. However, the majority of participants joined the IPS during a
recession in Ireland in the late 1980s and early 1990s and this may have shaped their
work ethic and their expectations of their staff;
...prison officers today don’t realise that there’s 500,000 people unemployed. They
think that the state owes them a salary...I can be down 15 or 20 [officers] a day, and
some of my colleagues can be down more...our levels of sick are appalling,
absolutely appalling... you can see some of your officers coming in and they’re gone
today, here tomorrow, gone the next day...and it becomes a habit and that crucifies
us...that means I’m locking down shops or whatever... stuff that keeps prisoners
stimulated...and yet our people just haven’t got it.
Furthermore, a number of female governors articulated that their gender may give them
an insight that their male colleagues may not have the benefit of, and that their gender
33
played a role in both how they acted and how they were perceived by their male
counterparts.
…. well I think being female you tend to be more maternal anyway. You can’t ignore
that, and you can’t ignore the fact that you have a side to you that men might
perceive as being soft, whereas we perceive it as being caring and understanding.
Some female governors in the sample expressed that, on occasion, their male
counterparts appeared to view their ‘different’ approach as weakness rather than
strength;
If you are progressing prisoners…sometimes that was seen as Oh you’re soft…you
know? What they were missing was that the role should be to progress prisoners,
no matter what system you’re in, doesn’t matter if it’s category A. The worst
prisoner in the world, we are supposed to try and rehabilitate them. But sometimes
I found that when I was trying to progress prisoners you were seen as being soft, as
opposed to what you were actually doing…your job.
It is apparent to the author that age, background and gender has an influence in shaping
governors’ attitudes and approach. Senior governors were more cognisant of
consequences of economic instability than their workforce because of their longer
experience. Insecurity about long-term strategic planning was also evident, perhaps due
to the potential for senior workforce to retire. As the majority of senior governors in the
IPS are white males, over fifty years of age who have come ‘through the ranks’ of the
service, this appears to have led to a ‘totemic’ identity which evidenced itself during the
course of this study in discourse and uniformity of attitudes. There appeared to be a
perception by female participants that they have a more outwardly ‘caring’ approach
than their male counterparts and they feel this approach can be perceived as a weakness
by men. However, their male counterparts expressed caring attitudes towards those in
their charge throughout the study and did not appear to consider such attitudes unmasculine.
34
4.1.3 Education
Smyth and McCoy (2009) assert that the type of education and the qualifications an
individual achieves is indicative of their social and economic backgrounds. All but three of
the sample had successfully completed the Leaving Certificate (the final examination in
the Irish secondary school system) prior to commencing employment with the IPS. The
finding of this research correlates with Bryans (2007) study of senior prison managers in
the UK, with governors in the ROI tending to have higher success in education than others
within skilled manual, intermediate and junior non-manual socio-economic groups before
joining the IPS. Only two of the governors interviewed had a degree prior to joining the
IPS. However, a further eight participants had studied part time whilst in the job and had
attained higher educational awards also. Furthering their education, in combination with
the salary structure laid out in table two below, may partially explain why most of the
governors (88%) interviewed expressed that they regard themselves as socially upwardly
mobile when compared to their socio-economic grouping before commencing
employment in the IPS.
I’d use myself as an example of somebody who could come in [to the job] with a very
basic education, and through I suppose, the love of the job, and I suppose through
the job loving me…it’s helped me to develop and has made me where I am at the
moment.
The table below illustrates the mean salary details of each governor grade, a combination
of basic salary and allowances;
Grade
Salary €
Campus Governor
126,886
Governor Grade 1
113,758
Governor Grade 2
100,716
Governor Grade 3
85,540
Table two: Salary Details of IPS Governors (Dáil Written Answers, 2012).
35
Most of the remaining sample cited a lack of time and their workloads as a factor in not
undertaking programmes of higher education.
I have very few courses done compared to a lot of governors, but I think that’s my
own fault and what I do is say I haven’t time really, I’m too busy at the moment to
do it...
However, the majority of the sample (83%) had undertaken numerous work related
training programmes. Despite successfully completing multiple vocational training
programmes, a number of governors cited that there was a lack of training for senior
managers;
As you know, most prisons governors come from the floor, you get very little training
as you move up.
When you get to the most senior grades…there is no training. You are gone from an
officer on the floor and fifteen years later you are leading a team….and yet you get
no specific training for it. No organisation on the outside would survive that sort of
thing.
The majority of governors in the sample who did not undertake higher level education felt
that they did not necessarily need to do so as their practical experience was sufficient to
perform their day to day tasks. This viewpoint may be detrimental for the IPS as recent
years have seen an increased strategic focus on providing programmes of higher
educational programmes for new entrants to the service 3 and a ‘return of fees’
programme4 for other staff and management. If education and lifelong learning is not
considered advantageous by some prison governors this may have a negative ‘trickle
down’ effect on the attitudes of the staff under their leadership and management.
It appeared to the author that governors in the sample who have undertaken higher
education programmes have a more reflective approach to their work and were better
able to articulate their role, values, motivations and priorities. This was evident during the
3
The Higher Certificate in Custodial Care (HETAC level 6) was introduced in 2007 as a mandatory two year
programme for all recruit prison officers entering the IPS.
4
IPS staff and management can currently apply to have 80% of course fees returned to them on successful
completion of a training or educational programme. Students can also apply for an additional 40 hours
‘study leave’ per annum to further support their educational endeavours.
36
interviews in the clarity of their statements and the philosophical approach to
descriptions of their role and ‘what prisons are for’. Some of the governors in the sample
who completed higher education programmes were also of the opinion that their
education contributed greatly to enhancing their professional performance and enhanced
skills such as report writing.
Once I got into the study, I actually liked it. I enjoyed it, it was great and I have to
say, only for doing that course I wouldn’t be where I am at the moment…..because it
removed all the barriers and the fear…even simple things like report writing, you
know, …and I used to dread doing reports.
4.2 Motivations and job satisfaction
4.2.1 Introduction
Along with clarity of role, individual character, approach to work and education,
motivation is an important element of behaviour in the context of an individual’s work
performance (Hertzberg, 2003). Schomburg (2007) states that work motivation can be
viewed from a number of different perspectives and that work motivation can be
regarded as an individual’s somewhat unchanging quality, as his or her character. Luthans
(1998) warns that motivation should not be considered as the sole explanation of work
behaviour and asserts that motivation interrelates with and acts in combination with
other processes within an individual’s work environment. Job satisfaction on the other
hand indicates an affective state and can be considered as the condition of feeling at a
particular time towards achieving or not achieving the individual's work goals (Saleh &
Pasricha, 1975).
4.2.2 Motivations for joining the prison service
All but two of the sample had no relatives working in the prison service upon joining and
had no preconceived notions of what the career entailed, although a number of
participants had relatives working in similar disciplined services such as the armed
services or the Garda Síochána. The vast majority of the participants cited that they were
completely unaware of what the role of a prison officer entailed or knowledge of
prisoners prior to joining;
37
I suppose at that time I would have thought that anyone in prison was...nearly all
raving lunatics ...that they’d stand out. I wouldn’t have been able to imagine that
someone at the bus stop might have been a prisoner....that I would have known the
difference.
I remember hearing two fellas talking and one fella saying to the other I was up in
the Joy [Mountjoy Prison] for three months, and I froze and thought what? Your
man’s been in jail, Jesus! When I heard he’d been in …. it froze me to the spot, I was
terrified of him. I was watching him; I wouldn’t go near him, but my perception of
people who are in prison obviously has changed massively.
When asked their motivations for joining the prison service, almost all of the sample
(83%) cited that they were motivated by extrinsic instrumental reasons such as the
financial benefits of the job and security of tenure. Few participants identified any
intrinsic non-instrumental philosophical reasons such as the social efficacy of the role as
reasons for joining the prison service.
…and the whole economic situation changed outside and I took the job in the prison
service. It was a complete and utter fluke.
I joined during the last big recession we were in…so the only jobs I could actually get
that had any sort of decency to them or permanency to them was in the public
service. So I had applied for all the say, civil service jobs…and I applied for the prison
service as part of that programme and the prison service came up trumps for me.
However, the entire sample stated that their initial motivation for joining the prison
service – security of tenure and financial benefits no longer motivated them in their
current role although they still appreciated the financial benefits of a stable career.
4.2.3 Current motivations and job satisfaction
There was a clear variance in motivational drivers between pre-appointment and postappointment attitudes and motivations. Most of the sample (92%) cited that their
motivations were now intrinsic and non-instrumental and quoted motivations such as
getting tasks accomplished and improving the lot of both the staff and the offenders in
their care. The ‘higher level’ motivators (Maslow, 1954) such as achieving organisational
38
goals and being in a position of responsibility appear to have replaced initial lower level
motivators of security of tenure and financial gain post appointment to the service.
… there’s also a whole host of areas where you can improve the quality of your
colleague’s working lives and improve the lives of prisoners….you can also bring
some degree of comfort to the families of prisoners in many cases. That’s my
motivation.
I believe my total role is to do the best I can for the people in my care. And that’s
both staff and prisoners.
Governors in the sample were asked if their role contributed to their job satisfaction. The
objective of this dimension of research was to ascertain were they satisfied with their
overall work and was not concentrated on any particular facet of their role. Some of the
available literature on prisons suggest that prisons are essentially ‘dehumanising’ social
settings (Irwin, 1980) and that they are damaging environments for both prisoners and
the staff that work within them (Crawley, 2004). It would seem therefore that to attain a
high level of job satisfaction within a prison, never mind when trying to manage the
complexity of tasks within one, is unlikely. However this perspective does not appear to
be reflected in the data as all of the governors in the sample (100%) cited that their role
contributed to their job satisfaction and that they were very satisfied with their work.
Gruenberg (1980) states that job satisfaction is positively related to occupational status
which may go some way to explaining the high satisfaction rates amongst the sample.
Governor grades in the sample gave a number of different reasons for explaining their
high level of job satisfaction. For the majority of governors (86%) job satisfaction was
derived from being in a position to develop and help the offenders and staff in their care;
..... I am in a position to hopefully assist someone during that day to make a decision
that may affect their lives....literally every time I talk to someone, every time I pick
up the phone, every time I meet a prisoner on the corridor, all those interactions…. it
will also influence hopefully some aspect of some person’s life, whether it’s an
officer or whether it’s a prisoner.
.....because I am in a position to make strategic decisions, I decide what way my
prison is going, where I can help people.
39
Other participants were more task orientated and for them job satisfaction came from
doing their job and doing it well.
It’s getting the job done, you know? And that covers a whole range of aspects of it,
you know? From the day to day running of the prison, to the broader strategic aims
of the organisation. That, I deliver on those, from the simple to the large.
However, despite the high levels of job satisfaction that were reported, governors in the
sample identified a number of contemporary issues and challenges that may have the
potential to diminish their commitment, motivation and job satisfaction. In particular,
governors spoke of their increased workloads as an area of concern as the following
quotes illustrate;
....when I was a younger officer and I’d go into my governor’s office and there
wouldn’t be a sheet of paper on the man’s desk. He was either very good at
delegating or the same volume of work wasn’t there. Now unfortunately, by the
time I got there... the sheets of paper...we’re inundated...
.... with today’s volume of work, my assistant, my deputy, they’re swamped with
work, they’re swamped. So, we’re all running faster...we’re all told we need to do
more with less and that’s grand, but we’re running faster just to stand still, just to
keep up with the basic day to day issues.
I think that the workload nowadays and particularly now in the climate that we’re
in, where we’re losing posts, there’s a greater volume of work being put on the
shoulders of the individuals who are left to carry it on.
The volume of work governors in the sample face on a daily basis was a common theme
throughout all of the research interviews. Their perception of being overworked could be
an issue for the IPS when considered in light of the age and service profile of the sample
group as almost all of the senior governors can retire at any time if their job satisfaction
or motivational rates diminish. Other common factors which were identified as
potentially reducing job satisfaction rates included a lack of financial and staff resources;
40
....if you think that years ago with the ‘just lock them up’ culture you could do that
with a very small number of people....but now, the population is climbing and the
resources are shrinking.
We have X hundred people out there this morning and we have meaningful
occupation for about a hundred.
That’s hopeless, hopeless.
So the biggest
challenge is to get progression and regimes in place that are meaningful and then
maintaining them.
….transformation is a huge challenge for us, absolutely huge. I think that getting buy
in from all the relevant services is going to be huge for us. Every service, probation,
psychology or whatever….they’ve all been cut back, they’re in the same boat as we
are…ehmm…and we’re using this saying – we have to do more with less...
We have literally run into what I would call a perfect storm….the prison service, and
this prison in particular, has lost a lot of its senior staff….and to try and maintain the
services we had…well, it has put a lot of pressure on me and my senior management
team.
Another common theme that presented during interviews was that governors did not
have time for strategic thinking and most of their time was expanded on day to day tasks;
I suppose when you are doing HR courses you are told, as a manager you must
delegate and sit at your desk and strategically think of how you are going to
operate...the reality is that you have got two or three hundred officers in your
prison, you’ve got all the agencies and every problem that they have will come to
you. They all need time, require time and demand time....you have to be all things to
all people.
....and I suppose the knock on consequence of that is should you be strategically
thinking about what you are supposed to be doing, you don’t have time...you’re fire
fighting from the time you come in the morning until the time you go home.
Notwithstanding the challenges governors are faced with in their day to day tasks, it
appears that governors in the sample are highly motivated and enjoy high rates of job
satisfaction. This is advantageous to the IPS as governors’ commitment to attaining the
41
strategic goals outlined in the IPS 3 year strategic plan appears to be high. However, it is
apparent that governors perceive that the sheer volume of work they are tasked with
reduces the time they have available to strategically lead those in their charge. Rather,
they appear to be caught up in the day to day management tasks necessary to run their
prisons. This seems to be particularly evident in the smaller prisons which have much
smaller management teams than campus prisons. Smaller prisons still have the same
diversity and range of business tasks as the larger prisons, but appear not to have enough
people on their management teams to carry administrative functions out in a timely,
efficient manner.
4.3 Defining the role of governor
The majority of the sample responded to the question ‘how would you define the role of
governor? ’ by explaining how they saw their role from a number of broad perspectives.
Replies to the question ranged from the philosophical to a more procedural, managerial
discourse;
The governor’s role… is to be a part of the policy making process for the IPS. It’s my
job to sit down with the Director General and other Directorates and strategize as to
how the service can best move forward. My job as the governor then is to bring that
back into the prison…and get the people under me...to implement that policy.
All were aware of the significant responsibilities their role entailed and the potential
impact that their decisions would have on those in their care;
....the judge decides that, I am taking this person out of society, as a punishment
and I am handing him to you Governor, and all of the responsibilities that rest with
the detention of this individual, for the period of time that I have set for him,
including the legal, the safety, even the social, are all on your shoulders, that this is
your job.
... sometimes you forget the power you have as a governor you know? You’ve a lot
of power. But you always have respect for that power and the ability to make
decisions that ... can have a huge impact on a lot of things....people’s personal
wellbeing...my decision making can have a huge impact.
42
Governors perform a number of routine roles and administrative duties which are
common tasks for managers in any setting, inside or outside prisons. However, governors
in the sample also identified a number of prison specific roles that appear to be unique to
a custodial environment such as conducting adjudications at disciplinary hearings,
maintaining ‘right relationships’ (Liebling, 2004) between staff and prisoners and ensuring
the security and good order of their prisons.
4.4 Ethics, values and ideologies
4.4.1 Introduction
Governors are one of the most significant influences on defining a prisons ethical
framework. Rutherford (1994) asserts that criminal justice practitioner’s intrinsic values
and ideologies shape the way in which they approach their work. Given the significance of
governors underlying values and how that may inform their approach to ‘governing’, this
section presents findings on the values and ideologies of the Irish prison governors and
the extent to which they felt they influenced their approach.
4.4.2 Where did their value framework come from?
Throughout this research governors commonly cited that their ethics and values were
shaped by both their family backgrounds and their early career experiences. The majority
of governors in the sample maintained that their values were strongly shaped by their
early childhood experiences and felt that those values stayed with them throughout their
career as they were an integral part of who they were.
You have a certain character, a certain makeup...and I’d say they’re formed in the
womb, with your family, where you grow up, in school...I think that you hold your
values all the way through. You can’t have one value today and another next year.
They don’t change that much. You are the person you are. You’re either someone
people can trust or you’re someone that people don’t trust...I’m saying that you stick
to your core values.
Other participants stated that their values were shaped by other governors they worked
with and they adopted the ethos of people they admired.
43
…and from my point of view, it was great to have a manager that can see your
potential and wants to develop you. I always try to do that myself, I’ve failed a lot of
times but I always revert back. I’m very keen to let people know that I want to
develop them in the same way I wanted people to develop me. That was one of the
best things about him, he’d see your potential and your enthusiasm, and he’d go the
extra yard to bring it through.
However, others stated that their values were shaped by watching the negative
behaviour of governors they worked with in the past and by making a conscious decision
not to act that way if they became governors in the future.
It’s just that they didn’t have principles…they just didn’t know or didn’t care about
the difference between good behaviour or bad behaviour, or what effect their
behaviour had on other people, you know? The majority of the ones that I would
have not have had time for was basically down to a lack of integrity, a lack of ability
to do things the right way.
I worked with a governor who couldn’t tell the truth if you put a gun to his head. He
was a bully, a thug, a bad communicator…I’ll sum it up for you, I can work with
incompetence, but I can’t work with a liar…and I couldn’t work with that governor
because he was a liar.
....I’ve seen the effects that he has had on peoples careers and their home life and
that’s…that’s beyond repair, and I think that’s terrible.
A common strand within the negative attributes of governors they had worked with
previously was a lack of honesty. This may have influenced the values that governors in
the sample articulated as positive attributes illustrated below in section 4.4.3.
4.4.3 What values do they hold to be important?
Although few of the governors in the sample responded with any precise definition of
their working values or ideologies, most gave explicit examples in relation to their
approach to their work which can be seen in narratives throughout this thesis. When
asked to define what values governors held to be important most governors in the sample
responded with ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’. Governors in the sample felt that the values of
44
integrity and honesty contributed to their credibility, which was a vital facet for successful
outcomes when dealing with prisoners in their care and their staff.
To me one of the most important attributes that any governor, any leader should
have is credibility. Along with credibility goes transparency, honesty, integrity...once
you have those and once staff believe that you have those you’ll be a far more
effective leader.
I think that sometimes if you come in and try to spoof your way through it and wind
people up …you know yourself from dealing with prisoners…no don’t talk to him,
he’s a wind up...it’s all about credibility and I think that’s vital. Everybody has to
have credibility, from a basic grade officer to the Director General. If you haven’t got
credibility you’re going nowhere.
4.4.4 Predominant ideology
The majority of governors in the sample did not explicitly express their ideologies during
the course of the research. However, it was evident from the narratives of governors used
throughout this study that the majority of governors appear to be what Crewe and
Liebling (2011) term ‘moral dualists’ in their typology of professional styles. They define
‘moral dualists’ as highly competent individuals that have a balanced approach between
maintaining their values and ensuring the efficient management of their prisons (Crewe &
Liebling, 2011). Crewe and Liebling (2011) go on to assert that managers that fall into this
category tend to be insightful in regard to the dynamics of power and are emphatic
towards individuals.
As prison officers, we have a huge amount of power…and even more so, there’s a
huge power differential between those in our charge and us. So, there’s a huge
obligation on us not to abuse that power….there’s a huge obligation on us to use
that power that we have for good.
Moral dualists have clear ethical frameworks and see dimensions such as security and
relationships as mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting.
....and from my experience of working in other jurisdictions and doing training
courses, everybody, across the world is very envious of the prisoner – staff
45
relationship in the IPS. Very, very few others have that, like in the states, I’ve talked
to lads in the American service and when you go into a prison they know the
prisoners number and that he’s doing fifteen life sentences, and when you say
what’s his name?, they don’t have a clue. I think we have a very positive
relationship…
Some of the governors attributed positive staff-prisoner relationships to the
uniqueness of Irish culture;
….and I do believe that in the IPS we have very good staff prisoner relationships, that
staff get on well with prisoners and prisoners get on well with staff, in the main, and
a lot of that is to do with the Irish psyche, the Irish approach and how we deal with
people....
Their answers to a number of ‘targeted questions’ also indicate that the majority of
governors in the sample fell into the moral dualist category and were most comfortable
with ‘harmony values’ such as a respect for human dignity, respect, equality, progress and
cooperation (Crewe & Liebling, 2011). When asked ‘what are prisons for?’ most of the
sample acknowledged that although they could see a clear need for protecting the public
from risk in the case of dangerous prisoners, they felt that prison was not suitable or
desirable for people convicted of crimes at the lower end of the criminal justice scale.
Prisons should just be for the most dangerous people, to keep them behind
bars...and they’re not. Prison doesn’t work in the sense that we have people here
that don’t need to be here...but there’s nowhere else in society for them.
And I’ve often heard prisons described before as casualty departments of life, and
they are, for the mad, the bad…sure you know, we get them all in. So I suppose… I
view some of them [the prisoners] as victims....
...you want to do the very best for the prisoners you have because some of them are
misfortunates. Some of them are in there because they’ve had one stroke of bad
luck...couldn’t pay a fine, couldn’t do whatever because of unemployment, and you
can see these things becoming more evident as the years go on, because of the
recession.
46
Interestingly, when considered in the context of contemporary debate in the UK and
some other jurisdictions as to whether or not prisoners should be allowed to vote 5, 100%
of governors in the sample responded that it has been a positive development in Ireland.
Although no governor in the sample explicitly stated it, the conflicting attitudes between
the two neighbouring islands on this issue may be due to the unique historical and social
backgrounds of each country;
Isn’t it good to think that we, as a prison community, can nurture people’s opinion?
Even though they’re in prison and mightn’t get out for twenty years…as to how they
see the country going, who are we to say they can’t have an opinion in that? I think
that we should nurture that.
Well if we are trying to make them feel part of society...most of the people who
come in here don’t feel part of society, so I think that it’s good that they can vote.
Other questions within this dimension also received positive responses by governors in
the sample. In particular, when asked how they felt about conjugal visits from a
philosophical perspective, governors in the sample were almost unanimously in favour if
adequate processes and resources could be put in place to minimise security risks.
….it’s been proven through research that family contact is vital with prisoners and
their families outside…and the more we can nurture family contact…they are six
times less likely to reoffend with family contact. There’s huge, huge security
concerns about it, but other jurisdictions are doing it and I think that it makes it
much more…positive and healthy environment for the inmates, I think that....I think
that we should do it.
The trouble with using the term conjugal is that it is focussed on one aspect of a
relationship which is the purely sexual end of it… I see absolutely no reason, that if
we recognise the detrimental effect of imprisonment to family life, which nobody
can deny, well then what’s the problem of trying to put something in place to ease
that?
5
Irish prisoners have the right to vote following the enactment of legislation in 2006.
47
Only a very small minority of the governors involved in this study did not have the
capacity to discuss issues in contemporary penal management with any theoretical depth.
Rather, most governors in the study had a critical, philosophical approach to their work
and most were well equipped to articulate issues in the broader criminal justice system.
4.4.5 Do their values and ideologies shape the contours of their prison?
All of the governors in the sample were confident that their values had an impact on their
discretionary decision making which in turn defined parameters of expected behaviour
for their staff and the prisoners in their care.
....if the prison governor has obvious values, by obvious I mean demonstrated values
that are obvious to the people around them, those values because of the power
imbalance between them, those values, in large part will be the values of the people
underneath.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the ethos or the culture in a prison is not only
influenced but is led by the governor of that prison...
I think that the whole ethos of the prison is based on the governor’s attitude and
how we deliver.
The majority of governors in the sample cited that they ensured the communication of
their values, priorities and ethos to their staff and the prisoners in their care through four
key tasks; walking the floor of their prisons; conducting governor’s parade6; conducting
adjudications at disciplinary hearings and by managing and developing their staff.
i) Walking the floor
A key task identified by governors in the sample was the requirement to ‘walk the floor’
of their prisons.
I love to walk the prison on a daily basis. I love the interaction we have with staff, I
love the interaction we have with prisoners...
6
Governor’s parade takes place in a room, generally in or near the prison’s accommodation area. Prisoners
can seek to talk to the governor, usually to facilitate various requests such as extra visit time, temporary
release requests and other applications. Normally held from 9.00am – 10.00am, disciplinary issues are
usually also dealt with on ‘governor’s parade’.
48
Governors in the sample cited a number of reasons for walking the floor of their prisons
whenever possible. Monitoring and inspecting their prisons enables governors in the
sample to keep their fingers on the pulse of the prison, to communicate their values, to
influence staff interaction with prisoners and each other, provide visible leadership to
those in their charge and to show that their staff are valued;
....a very important part of that is visiting posts, being seen around the place, talking
to officers on the most routine posts. All it takes is saying how are things?
Everything all right? Are you okay? Yeah, and that’s all it is, but he knows that the
governor appreciates that what he’s there for and that he’s not just dumped there.
Reasons cited for walking the floor of their prisons varied between the philosophical to
a more managerial, task orientated approach;
One of the advantages of walking around in a prison is that as you are passing the
workshops or a staff door is just actually talking to staff and asking them
questions….and you can do that in a very general way by having a conversation…to
see if your policies are being understood....How are you finding such and such? And
if he’s looking at you as though you have two heads…it means your policies haven’t
been driven down.
Governors in the sample cited that by visiting all areas of the prison they were able to
evaluate information gathered from a variety of sources to discover problems and
identify potential opportunities. A key reason for touring the prison cited by most
governors in the sample was to allow prisoners to approach them directly, which also
contributed to their knowledge of what was happening within their prison.
....and after your parade you must walk the ground....simply to let prisoners know
that they have access to you. You must be available to people...because you must
understand, a prisoner is the most vulnerable person when he’s locked up in prison.
He’s there against his will, he’s in a strange environment...a prisoner should always
have access to the prison governor to air whatever issues he has...so prison
governors must go on the ground, you must make time for it.
49
I make sure that there’s a good balance between staff and prisoner relationships by
walking the prison and talking to the prisoners, talking to the staff, talking to the
visitors, talking to the other agencies and seeing what’s happening, what’s going on.
Prisoners will tell you quickly enough if there is a problem.
One of the key problems identified by the governors in relation to their statutory
obligation7 to walking the floor of the prison is that it can be time consuming. A number
of governing governors in the sample stated that they personally carried out this function
as they felt it was vital to their role, but the cost was that they did not have sufficient time
for administrative tasks. This issue appears to create a dichotomy for them between their
philosophical ideals and their perception of an increasingly managerial, task orientated
approach to prison management following the PSA.
ii) Governors parades and disciplinary reports
One of the more commonly identified (and most time consuming) tasks identified by
governors in the sample was the importance of personally facilitating governors parades
and adjudicating on disciplinary reports whenever possible. Again, key reasons cited for
undertaking governor’s parades and conducting disciplinary reports personally rather
than delegating the task to a more junior governor grade, was communication and
contact with staff and prisoners.
…I’ll always make a point of sitting and talking to prisoners. Now he probably wants
to get in and out as quick as he can, get his special visit or whatever, but I always try
and engage them in conversation …and to get as much information as I can to get a
picture in my own mind as to how am I going to help him…and it lets them know
that if they have a problem or whatever, that they can come to me formally or
informally as I walk the prison, and I have to say it’s stood me in good stead...
The majority of governors stated that they use such platforms to measure the ‘ethical’
environment of their prisons and to access the state of relationships between staff and
7
Rule 77. (1) of the 2007 Prison Rules states - The Governor shall make daily inspections of the prison
including those areas of the prison where prisoners are accommodated or congregate or are otherwise
held. The times of all such visits shall be at the Governor's discretion and recorded in a manner as
prescribed by the Director General. In the event that the Governor is absent from the prison, he or she shall
ensure that the responsibilities to carry out the inspections under this Rule shall be delegated to a Deputy
Governor or Assistant Governor.
50
prisoners. A number of governors stated that they used adjudications to define what they
felt was important in the prison and to define boundaries of acceptable behaviour for
both staff and prisoners.
The majority of governors in the sample stated that they used adjudications to
communicate their priorities to staff and prisoners;
... I’ve a great belief that we have a huge responsibility to keep the staff and
prisoners safe right? And to do that you must have discipline in the prison. Now if
you’re going to be weak you’re not going to take hard decisions when they have to
be taken. Say to impose harsh punishments or to deprive people contact with their
families and so on like that, then you are going to be seen as being weak and if they
sniff the slightest bit of weakness in you they will be on to you like rats on a dead
bison, you’ll be gone, you know? And then you lose all your credibility. For example
if somebody strikes an officer they’re going to get hammered, they’re going to get
the whole lot no matter what the circumstances, it doesn’t matter right? And then
work it down from that. But as long as both sides know what the rules are and that
you are going to be strong when you need to be strong. That’s very important.
Most of the sample cited that one of the most important aspects of their role was
maintaining their autonomy and the need to be seen as an independent authority by staff
and prisoners. Participants used the example of conducting disciplinary hearings to
illustrate the ‘balancing act’ they faced when trying to support their staff while protecting
the rights of prisoners.
...prisoners have this perception that I’m in there [at adjudication] with the chief and
we’re there to get the prisoner. That’s not the role at all, the actual role is I’m
supposed to be independent...I listen to what the uniformed officers present as
evidence on a P19 [disciplinary report form] and then I listen to what the prisoner
says and then I independently assess it ... but I’m not there just to find that the
prisoner is guilty because the officer said he was.
...you have to make sure that prisoners don’t see the governor as part of the game,
if you know what I mean.
51
....one of the funny things about it is I’d have people coming into me now, promoted
grades you know? Coming in to me say before I’d do a P19 and they’d be saying to
me, listen, this is what happened there.... and I’d be there saying eh, hang on a
second and I’d explain to them what they’re doing and what I’m supposed to be
doing and then I’d say now out you go and I’ll hear the evidence and if it’s right, then
I’ll convict him, if it’s not right or if it’s flawed then I won’t and that’s the way it is.
The majority of governors in the sample were of the opinion that their decisions at
adjudications influenced whether or not staff or prisoners viewed them as being ‘on their
side’ and felt that by remaining independent of external influence and by paying heed to
the principles of natural justice they could remain bipartisan.
iii) Managing and developing staff
Managing poor performing staff is also a key function for governors in the IPS and was a
common thread of discussion throughout most of the interviews. The majority of
governors in the sample said that they personally dealt with problematic staff, industrial
relations, disciplinary hearings and some of the more difficult aspects of personnel
management.
....about 95% of our staff are excellent...there is a small hard core there that should
never be in the job, that will frustrate people at all grades, that do their level best to
blackguard people through bullying and intimidation...and as one governor said to
me, rather than win the lottery I’d love to be able to come into the prison and sack
half a dozen people....I think that if every prison governor in the country had that
option, I’d say they’d nearly all forgo the lotto.
...we have to deal with them, unless they are caught doing something and there’s
witnesses and it goes to a disciplinary report, it’s hard to manage them...they are
clever people. But, and I don’t want to emphasise those, the majority of our staff are
excellent officers. They will treat people with respect and compassion, they’re there
to help.
The majority of governors in the sample expressed frustration at the amount of time they
had to spend addressing the non-attendance and poor performance of a small minority of
52
their staff, rather than spend that time developing, acknowledging and bringing on staff
that deserved their attention.
....there’s a small hard-core of staff who will cause eighty percent of your work,
because of the nature of the individuals. They’re not the better staff...they’re the
problem people that you have to work with and manage the best you can. Staff
generally will cause more problems [than prisoners]; they take up a lot more time.
One of the frustrations cited by the majority of the sample was that although governors
are expected to manage poor performance directly and can practice their discretion in a
number of other areas, they do not have the final decision over dismissals but are
restricted to making recommendations to the Human Resources Directorate.
And we put people up to be sacked....and a fortnight later I got an email to say
alright, we’re giving them another chance. You put people on the plate to be sacked,
and they deserve to be...you get this, no, no, we’re giving them another chance. It
goes higher than you...and I think the fact is dawning, eventually, that we’re going
to have to lose some officers. None of us want it by the way....but can a governor do
anything? He can only make recommendations; the decision is made beyond him.
All of the governors in the sample appeared to value their staff highly and were aware
that they could not run a successful prison without their staff’s contribution. A high level
of respect for their staff was evident throughout all of the interviews.
I’ve always believed that I get most of my good ideas from doing my rounds, from
the staff on the floor because they’re operating at the cutting edge.
I think that what helps us as a service and what helps with the running of our whole
system is the relationship…and I think that it’s a relationship between the AIS in the
workshop and the prisoner attending that workshop…that relationship I have to say
is gold. In the same way the class officers’ role is gold, it makes the whole prison run.
If the prisoners don’t want us to run their prison, there’s no way on gods earth we
can force them to….and, we can try and coerce them all we like…we only run prisons
with their cooperation, which is true…but I think that it’s the relationships that…it’s
all about the relationships.
53
For many of the governors effective personnel management is a vital aspect of their role
as they believe that by treating their staff well, with dignity and respect, they could
influence the way their staff interacted with prisoners.
....it’s not about talking the talk, it’s about talking the talk and walking the
walk...most staff will see the governor as their leader, they will look to the
management of the prison for the behaviour that’s expected of them.…you’re
setting standards that you expect from everybody else.
The majority of governors interviewed expressed that by ‘leading by example’ they could
communicate their ethos and set boundaries of acceptable behaviour for staff and
prisoners utilising the platforms presented by conducting governor’s parade,
adjudications, managing prison personnel and walking the floor of their prison as often as
possible. The aspiration that most of the sample expressed - to communicate their values
in order to influence the contours of their prisons, is also reflected in their personal
motivations and their perceptions of the role of a governor.
54
SECTION FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The overarching research question of this study was to determine how do the personal
values and ideologies of senior prison governors in the ROI shape their approach to
managing prisons. It has been illustrated that governors’ personal and social backgrounds
influence their approach to their work and that their age, gender and education play an
important part in this process. Governors in the sample were confident that their values
and ideologies made a significant impact on the contours of their prisons and they
communicated these values to those in their care through four main platforms – walking
the floor of their prisons, conducting governor’s parade, adjudications and managing
personnel.
Governors in the sample appeared to be committed to ensuring that their values and the
values espoused in the IPS three year strategic plan are implemented at ground level in
their prisons. However, in other jurisdictions such as the UK, some prisons appear to be
less harsh and more humanitarian than others (Pratt, 2008) and this may also be the case
in the ROI. In order to develop empirical evidence of the effectiveness of each individual
prison’s approach to ensuring that the values promoted in the IPS three year plan are
upheld it may be desirable to develop a strategic research programme which can provide
a quantitative measurement of the qualitative dimensions of prison life for both staff and
prisoners. This approach could ensure that IPS corporate values and governors’ values are
empirically measured in order to ascertain if there is a gap between official ideology and
the reality of prison life for both prisoners and staff. Implementation of such a
programme would provide an ethical ‘snapshot’ of Irish prisons and would provide senior
management with a tool to empirically measure the variable quality of prison life for key
stakeholders within each prison. In addition, implementation of such a system would
provide IPS with a auditing process to ascertain if the prison services’ mission to “provide
safe and secure custody, dignity of care and rehabilitation to prisoners for safer
communities” and vision of “a safer community through excellence in a prison service built
on respect for human dignity” (Irish Prison Service, 2012) is effective. Perhaps the most
compelling reason for this recommendation to be acted upon is Behn’s maxim of ‘‘what
gets measured gets done’’ (2003, p. 599).
55
This study has illustrated that the majority of governing governors in the IPS are white
males over fifty years of age who have come ‘through the ranks’ of the service. The age
profile and analogous backgrounds of senior managers in the IPS appears to have resulted
in a ‘totemic’ identity, which was evident in the uniformity of attitudes and opinions
expressed by the majority of the governors. Although most of the opinions, values and
ideologies expressed throughout this study are in accord with official IPS rhetoric, in order
to further diversify and enhance the pool of experience, knowledge and attributes of
governor grades within the IPS the service may benefit from implementing an initiative to
encourage more female and ethnic minority staff to put themselves forward for
promotional competitions. If this is not possible given the restricted pool of ethnic
minority and female staff currently employed by the IPS, consideration should be given to
implementing an external competition for ‘direct entry’
or ‘accelerated career
development’ to governor grade level. This strategy may also reduce the concerns
expressed by senior managers regarding the aging profile of their senior management
teams.
This research has demonstrated that the majority of governors in the sample are highly
motivated, competent individuals who appear to have a balanced approach between
maintaining their values and ensuring the efficient management of their prisons.
However, as illustrated throughout this research, there appears to be a significant
challenge between balancing time for general management tasks and providing ethical
guidance and strategic leadership for those in their charge. The majority of the governors’
asserted strongly that the latter is the most important facet of their roles. Governors
perceived that contemporary developments in the IPS and the subsequent increase in
their workloads reduces the time they have to focus on what matters to them most.
However, it appears that this has not impacted on their job satisfaction or their strong
commitment to ensure the successful implementation of the IPS 3 year strategic plan
notwithstanding the challenges it presents for them.
In conclusion, governors in the sample consistently reflected values and beliefs that are
consistent with the IPS mission and the corporate values of the service. This is vital as the
need for strong leadership in a time of change is well documented and it appears that
there is little or no gap between official rhetoric and the governors’ professed core
values. By setting change in the context of an agreed set of ethical values as current policy
56
intends, the change process within IPS should lead to more efficient, safer prisons in
which there is an enhanced respect for decency and humanity.
57
References
Bachman, R. & Schutt, R. K., 2011. The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice
(Fourth Edition). California, USA: Sage Publications.
Behn, R. D., 2003. Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures.
Public Administration Review, 63(5), pp. 586-606.
Brown, A. D., 1998. Exploring Organisational Culture. 2nd ed. London: Financial Times Pitman.
Brown, J., 1996. Police Research: Some Critical Issues. In: F. Leishman, B. Loveday & S. Savage,
eds. Core Issues in Policing. London: Sage Publications, pp. 178-190.
Bryans, S., 2000. Governing Prisons: An Analysis of Who is Governing Prisons and the
Competencies Which They Require to Govern Effectively. The Howard Journal, 39(1), pp. 14-29.
Bryans, S., 2007. Prison Governors - Managing Prisons in a Time of Change. Devon: Wilan.
Carlen, P., 2002. Governing the Governors: Telling Tales of Managers, Mandarins and Mavericks.
Criminal Justice, 2/1, pp. 27-49.
Clemmer, D., 1940. The Prison Community. MA: Christopher Publishing Company.
Cohen, S. & Taylor, L., 1972. Psychological Survival. Harmondworth: Penguin.
Conrad, J., 1960. The Assistant Governor in the English Prison. British Journal of Criminology, X (4),
April, pp. 245-261.
Council of Europe, 2010. Council of Europe. [Online]
Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm
[Accessed 28th July 2012].
Coyle, A., 2002. A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management. London: International Centre
for Prison Studies.
Coyle, A., 2008. Change Management in Prisons. In: J. Bennett, B. Crewe & A. Wahidin, eds.
Understanding Prison Staff. Devon: Willan, pp. 231-245.
Crawley, E., 2004. Doing Prison Work : The Public and Private Lives of Prison Officers. Devon:
Willan Publishing.
Crewe, B., 2009. The Prisoner Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crewe, B., 2011. Depth, Weight, Tightness: Revisiting the Pains of Imprisonment. Punishment and
Society, 13(5), pp. 509-529.
Crewe, B., & Liebling, A. (2011). Are Liberal Humanitarian Penal Values and Practices Exceptional?
In In T. Ugelvik & J. Dullum (eds.), Penal Exceptionalism?: Nordic Prison Policy and Practice.
London and New York: Routledge.
58
Crewe, B., Liebling, A. & Hulley, S., 2011. Staff Culture, Use of Authority and Prisoner Quality of
Life in Public and Private Sector Prisons. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, I(44),
pp. 94-115.
Crow, G., Wiles, R., Heath, S. & Charles, V., 2006. Research Ethics and Data Quality: The
Implications of Informed Consent. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Issue 9,
pp. 83-95.
Cullen, F. T., Latessa, E. J., Burton, V. S. & Lombardo, L. X., 1993. The Correctional Orientation of
Prison Wardens: Is the Rehabilitative Ideal Supported?. Criminology (31), pp. 69-92.
Dáil Written Answers, 2012. KildareStreet.Com - Dáil debates - Written answers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-04-18.3760.0
[Accessed 4th June 2012].
Danzon, M., 2006. The Value of Values. In: M. Marinker, ed. Constructive Conversations about
Health Policy and Values. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.
Davis, S. M., 1984. Managing Corporate Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
Deegan, G., 2012. Irish Examiner. [Online]
Available at: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/system-strained-as-prison-population-rises32-201589.html
[Accessed 28th July 2012].
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, 2012. Croke Park Agreement. [Online]
Available at: http://per.gov.ie/croke-park-agreement/
[Accessed 1st May 2012].
Department of the Taioseách, 2011. Publications - Programme for Government 2011. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2011/Programme_for_Government_
2011.pdf
[Accessed 1st May 2012].
Dilulio, J., 1987. Governing Prisons: a Comparative Study of Correctional Management. New York:
The Free Press.
Farkas, M. A., 2001. Correctional Officers: What Factors Influence Work Attitudes?. Corrections
Management Quarterly, II(5), pp. 20-26.
Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Peregrine.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Goffman, E., 1961. Asylums. Oxford: Doubleday.
Gruenberg, B., 1980. The Happy Worker: An Analysis of Educational and Occupational Differences
in Determinants of Job Satisfaction. American Journal of Sociology, Volume 86, pp. 247-271.
59
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P., 1983. Ethnography, Priciples in Practice. London: Routledge.
Hertzberg, F., 2003. One More Time: How do you Motivate Employees?. Harvard Business Review,
Volume January, pp. 87-96.
House of the Oireachtas, 2007. Irish Statute Book. [Online]
Available at: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0252.html
[Accessed 13th May 2012].
ICPS, 2012. International Centre for Prison Studies. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal
[Accessed 30th July 2012].
Irish Prison Service, 2007. Irish Prison Service - Legislation. [Online]
Available at: http://irishprisons.ie/index.php/information-centre/publications/legislation
[Accessed 27th May 2012].
Irish Prison Service, 2012. About Us. [Online]
Available at: http://www.irishprisons.ie/about_us-home.htm
[Accessed 1st April 2012].
Irish Prison Service, 2012. Irish Prison Service - 3 Year Strategic Plan. [Online]
Available at: http://www.irishprisonservice.ie/ips_three_year_strategic_plan.pdf
[Accessed 2nd May 2012].
Irish Prison Service, 2012. Irish Prison Service - Prison Service Reform Programme. [Online]
Available at: http://irishprisons.ie/
[Accessed 14th May 2012].
Irish Prison Service, 2012. Irish Prison Service - Transformation Process. [Online]
Available at: http://irishprisons.ie/
[Accessed 12th May 2012].
Irwin, J., 1980. Prsions in Turmoil. Boston: Little Brown.
Irwin, J., 2009. Lifers - Seeking Redemption in Prison. New York: Routledge.
Isenberg, D., 2010. Publications. [Online]
Available at: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodes
[Accessed 31st March 2012].
Johnson, R., 1996. Hard Time: Understanding and Reforming the Prison. California: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Kauffman, K., 1988. Prison Officers and Their World. 1st ed. London: Harvard University Press.
King, R. D. & Wincup, E., 2008. The Process of Criminological Research. In: Doing Research on
Crime and Justice Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 13-44.
60
Lacey, N., 1994. Government as Manager, Citizen as Consumer: The Case of the Criminal Justice
Act 1991. Modern Law Review, Volume 57, pp. 534-554.
Lacey, N., 2008. The Prisoners' Dilemma: Political Economy and Punishment in Contemporary
Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liebling, A., 2004. Prisons and their Moral Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liebling, A., 2011. Moral Performance, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Prison Pain.
Punishment and Society, 13(5), pp. 530-550.
Liebling, A. & Crewe, B., 2012. Prisons Beyond the New Penology: The Shifting Moral Foundations
of Prison Management. In: J. Simon & R. Sparks, eds. The Handbook of Punishment and Society.
London: Sage.
Liebling, A., Crewe, B. & Hulley, S., 2011. Values and Practices in Public and Private Sector Prisons:
A Summary of Key Findings from an Evaluation. Prison Service Journal, July(196), pp. 55-58.
Liebling, A. & Price, D., 2001. The Prison Officer. 1st ed. s.l.:Prison Service Journal.
Liebling, A., Price, D. & Shefer, G., 2011. The Prison Officer. 2nd ed. Oxon: Willan Publishing.
Locke, E. A. & Lathan, G. P., 1990. Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Lonergan, J., 2010. The Governor - The Life and Times of the Man Who Ran Mountjoy. Ireland:
Penguin.
Luthans, F., 1998. Organisational Behaviour. 8th ed. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Mandela, N., 1994. Long Walk to Freedom. London: Little Brown.
Marquart, J. W., 1986. Doing Research in Prison: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Full
Participation of a Guard. Justice Quarterly, Volume 3, pp. 15-32.
Maslow, A., 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
McDonnell, D., 2000. Managerialism, Privatisation and the Prison Scene. Criminal Justice Matters,
40(1), pp. 13-14.
McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S., 1993. Research in Education: A Conceptual Understanding. New
York: Harper Collins.
Miller, W., 1973. Ideology and Criminal Jutice Policy: Some Current Issues. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, Volume 64, pp. 141-162.
Moster, A. N. & Jelic, E. L., 2009. Prison Warden Attitudes Toward Prison Rape and Sexual Assault :
Findings Since the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Prison Journal, Volume 89, Number 1,
pp. 65-78.
O'Leary, Z., 2005. Researching Real-World Problems: A Guide to Methods of Inquiry. London: Sage.
61
Oxford English Dictionary, 1991. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 8th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Poole, E. & Regoli, R., 1980. Role Stress, Custody, Orientation and Disciplinary Actions.
Criminology, II(18), pp. 215-226.
Pratt, J., 2008. Scandinavian Exceptionalism in an Era of Penal Excess: Part I: The Nature and Roots
of Scandinavian Exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology, 48(2), pp. 119-137.
Robson, C., 2011. Real World Research (Third Edition). West Sussex: Wiley.
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S., 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Rutherford, A., 1994. Criminal Justice and the Pursuit of Decency. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Saleh, S. D. & Pasricha, V., 1975. Job Orientation and Work Behaviour. The Academy of
Management Journal, 18(3), pp. 638-645.
Schomburg, H., 2007. Work Orientation and Job Satisfaction. Higher Education Dynamics, Volume
17, pp. 247-264.
Seiter, R. P., 2000. Correctional Leadership and Management in the New Millenium. Corrections
Compendium, 25(11), pp. 1-4.
Smyth, E. & McCoy, S., 2009. Investigating in Education: Combating Educational Disadvantage,
Dublin: The Economic and Social Research Institute, Research Series Number 6.
Stake, R. E., 2005. Qualitative Case Studies. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, eds. The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 443-466.
Sykes, G. M., 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, P. & Cooper, C., 2008. ‘It Was Absolute Hell’: Inside the Private Prison. Capital and Class,
96(Autumn), pp. 3-30.
Thomas, E., 1972. The English Prison Officer since 1850. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Walker, R., Hoggart, L. & Hamilton, G., 2008. Randon Assignment and Informed Consent: A Case
Study of Multiple Perspectives. American Journal of Evaluation, Issue 29, pp. 156 - 174.
62
APPENDIX I – Revised campus governance model
Mountjoy Campus
Dublin West Campus
Portlaoise Campus
Cork Prison
Limerick Prison
Castlerea Prison
Arbour Hill Prison
Loughan House
Shelton Abbey
IPSTDC
Operational Support
Group
PSEC
HQ
Employee Assistance
Programme
Total
Campus
Gov
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gov 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gov 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Gov 3
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
D/Gov
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A/Gov
6
5
5
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
Total
11
9
9
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
2
3
0
3
0
2
0
7
0
13
0
0
1
29
1
54
Governance
Leadership
Regimes and
Sentence
Management
Security and
Accomodation
Administration
Basic Campus Model
63
Appendix II – Initial interview sample 8
Letters (See Appendix IV) inviting purposive sample to participate in this research were
sent to indicated (30) Governor grades.
Description and Location
Mountjoy Prison
Committal prison for adult male
prisoners
St. Patricks
An institution for male juveniles
Institution
aged 16 to 21 years
Dóchas Centre
Committal prison for female
prisoners aged 17 years and over
Bed
Governor
Governor
Governor
Deputy
capacity
I
II
III
Governor
590
1
1
1
1
1
217
(Vacant)
105
1
1
Assistant Governor
1
1 (Vacant)
A semi-open place of detention for
Training Unit
male prisoners aged 18 years and
127
1
over for industrial training.
Wheatfield Prison
Cloverhill Prison
Midlands Prison
Prison for adult male prisoners
Committal prison for remand adult
male prisoners
Prison for adult male prisoners
700
1
431
1
616
1
1
2
1
1 (+ 1 Vacant)
1
2
Prison for adult male prisoners,
Portlaoise Prison
including the detention of high
359
1
1
1 (+ 1 Vacant)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
security prisoners
Committal prison for adult male
Cork Prison
prisoners
272
Co. Cork
Committal prison for adult male
Limerick Prison
(M) 290
and female prisoners
Co. Limerick
(F) 34
Committal prison for adult male
Castlerea Prison
prisoners, at Harristown, Castlerea,
351
Co. Roscommon.
An open centre for the detention of
Loughan House
male prisoners aged 18 years and
160
1
over, at Blacklion, Co. Cavan
Arbour Hill Prison
Prison for adult male prisoners, at
Dublin Road, Portlaoise, Co. Laois.
148
1
1
An open centre for male prisoners
Shelton Abbey
Operational
Support Group
aged 19 years and over, at Arklow,
Co. Wicklow
110
1
NA
1
1
Canine Unit
Security Screening Unit
1
1
Operational Support Unit
8
The table above represents governor grades placements at time of invitation to interview (March 2012).
The number and dispersion of governor grades in each institution has changed due to the introduction of
‘campus governance’ since the table was compiled.
64
Prison Service
Escort Corps
Provision of transport and staff for
prisoner hospital and court escorts
NA
1
NA
1
1
across the prisons estate.
Training and
Providers of vocational training and
Development
higher education programmes for
Centre
all grades of prison service staff.
Note:
There are 14 institutions in the Irish Prison System consisting of 11 traditional "closed"
institutions, two open centres, which operate with minimal internal and perimeter
security, and one “semi-open" facility with traditional perimeter security but minimal
internal security (the Training Unit). The majority of female prisoners are accommodated
in the purpose built "Dóchas Centre" with the remainder accommodated in Limerick
Prison (Irish Prison Service, 2012).
65
APPENDIX III – Interview Schedule
Interview Schedule for research project - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Governing Irish Prisons
– the background, values, characteristics of and challenges faced by Governor grades in the Irish
Prison Service.
I. Opening – Introduce Consent Form in Appendix V
(a). My name is Richard Roche and I am conducting this research as part of my studies on a
Master’s programme I am undertaking
through the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge
University. I’d like to ask you some questions about your background, how you define your role,
what motivates you, the values you consider to be important and what challenges Governors face
in a modern prison environment. I hope this research will contribute to the few existing studies on
Irish prisons as it will focus on the perceptions of the role of Governor by key personnel and will
provide an empirical account of the people who are managing our prisons. The interview should
take about 1 -2 hours although I want to ensure that you have an opportunity to raise any issues
that you feel are important, so I am flexible on time if it suits you. I will provide you with a
complete transcript of the interview when it is transcribed and I will make a copy of the
completed thesis available to you.
(b). Demographic and social background - I would like to ask you some questions about your
personal and professional background, your education, the experiences you have had in order to
learn more about you.
What county where you born in?
What county do you live in now?
What is your marital status?
How would you define your socio-economic origin when you joined the IPS?
What was your father’s occupation when you joined the IPS?
Do you have any relatives employed in the IPS?
What educational qualifications do you hold?
Depending on previous answer - Do you have a degree? What is it in? Was
it obtained before or during your current career?
What work did you do before you came into the IPS?
How long did you serve as an officer?
How many prisons have you worked in? At what grades?
How many years where you in the IPS before you were appointed as a
governor?
At what age were you appointed as a governor?
Time in current post?
66
How many posts have you worked at as governor?
(c) Opinions / perceptions of their work
What were your motivations for joining the service?
What motivates you now?
How do you define the governor’s role?
Does the role give you job satisfaction? How? Why?
What would you define as the prime challenge facing governors today?
Why?
What is distinctive about governing prisons in modern times?
Is the modern prison workplace changing? How?
Has the governing task changed?
What new constraints do governors face, if any?
Is leadership at corporate (HQ) level changing?
(d) Ideologies and Values
Can I ask you to think of the best governor you have worked with – What
were his / her attributes and qualities? What made him / her a good
governor?
Can I ask you to think of a governor who was not as strong – What were his
/ her attributes and qualities? What was it about him that made him not as
effective as a governor?
Can you tell me about any people, events or incidents that have shaped the
way you do your job?
What values do you hold to be important? Are your personal values
relevant to the shape of your prison?
What are prisons for?
Do prisons work?
Can prisons change people who are committed to them? How? Why?
With your experience, do you feel that people are inherently good or bad?
How do you feel about prisoners voting? Conjugal visits? Family visits?
Can a governor ensure that their staff treat prisoners in a fair respectful
way? How do you ensure that ‘right’ staff / prisoner relationships are
maintained in your prison?
Would you know if there was an imbalance?
Have your personal values changed over your time in the IPS? How? Why?
Do you feel that the IPS’s values have changed over time?
67
In your opinion what characteristics are necessary for an effective prison
governor? Why?
Do you feel that governors can have a ‘dissenting voice’? Explain...
How would you describe your leadership style?
Has it changed over the years?
(e) Interview close
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to facilitate me. Have you any questions
that you want to ask?
Is there any area that you feel is important in understanding Governor grades that we haven’t
discussed or that you would like to talk about?
Close.
68
APPENDIX IV – Letter to Participants:
(Adapted from University of Waterloo, Office of research ethics: Information letter for interview study downloaded
from: http://iris.uwaterloo.ca/ethics/human/application/samples/B4_InfoLetter_Interview.htm on Saturday 7th April
2012.)
Institute of Criminology
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge
CB3 9DA
Training and Development Centre
Beladd House
Dublin Road
Portlaoise
Telephone: +353 (0) 877836569
Telephone: +44 (0) 1223 335360
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Dear Governor,
This letter is an invitation to consider participating in a study I am conducting as part of my
Master’s degree in in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management at the Institute of
Criminology, Cambridge University under the supervision of Dr. Caroline Lanskey. I would like to
provide you with more information about this project and what your involvement would entail if
you decide to take part.
Title of Study: Governing Irish Prisons – the experiences, values, characteristics of and
challenges faced by Governor grades in the Irish Prison Service.
Description of study: The objective of this research is to determine the ideologies and values
of Irish prison Governor grades as it is they who have primary responsibility to ensure that
prison staff uphold the rules regulating prisons and respect the rights and dignity of offenders.
As Governor grades have a seminal role in shaping and implementing penal policy, the research
will go on to explore the challenges Governors face managing Irish prisons, how they define
their role and the influences which shape the way they do their work in an era of transformation
and change. In order to achieve this objective, I propose to conduct semi-structured interview
with you and a purposive sample of other prison Governor grades. If you decide that you wish
to participate, the interview schedule will be sent to you in advance of the interview.
Information for Potential Participants: Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. Your
participation will involve an interview of approximately 1 - 2 hours in length to take place in a
location that suits you. You may decline to answer any of the interview questions and you may
choose to withdraw from the study at any stage simply by advising me. With your permission,
the interview will be audio recorded to facilitate collection of information. The information will be
transcribed for analysis and a copy of the transcript will be made available to you. All
information you provide will be completely confidential and your name will not appear in any
thesis or report resulting from this study. With your permission anonymous quotations may be
used to inform my thesis. Data collected during the study will be retained by me for
69
approximately 36 months in a safe in a locked office in the IPS Training and Development
Centre. In the event that material based on this study is published, Dr. Caroline Lanskey my
Supervisor and / or other staff members at the Institute of Criminology, University of
Cambridge may also have access to the data.
There are no known or anticipated risks to you as a participant in this study. I would like to take
this opportunity to assure you that this study has been reviewed and has received ethics
clearance through the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
Benefits of Participation
There have been many studies of senior prison managers in the United States and the UK
covering broad issues such as comparative studies of correctional management and studies on
the correctional orientation of prison wardens etc. In contrast, there is a dearth of empirical
data available on the work that Irish prison Governors do despite their pivotal role in both their
prisons and in the wider criminal justice arena. This gap in empirical study is surprising as
because as asserted by Bryans (2007) “Governors are key actors in prisons and it is only by
understanding how prisons are governed, and by who, that we will have a better insight into
how our prisons operate”. To date, no empirical studies have been carried out on the career
backgrounds, values, characteristics or how Irish Governor grades address the specific
challenges they face in contemporary prison management. It is the aim of this research to
contribute to the few existing studies on Irish prisons as it will provide an empirical account of
the people who manage the complex daily strategic and operational aspects of Irish prisons. The
results of my study should be of benefit to the Irish Prison Service as well as to the broader
research community, and I hope that you can find the time to contribute to this research.
If you have any questions regarding this study, or would like additional information to assist you
in reaching a decision about participation, please contact me at 0877836569 or by email at
[email protected]. I will be in touch by email in the coming weeks to ask if you wish to
participate in this research.
I very much look forward to speaking with you,
Yours Sincerely,
____________________________________
Richard Roche,
Chief Officer, IPS Training and Development Centre.
70
APPENDIX V – Consent Form
(Adapted from University of Waterloo, Office of research ethics: consent form for interview study downloaded from:
http://iris.uwaterloo.ca/ethics/human/application/samples/B4_InfoLetter_Interview.htm on Saturday 7th April 2012.)
CONSENT FORM
By signing this consent form, you are not waiving your legal rights or releasing the researcher or
involved institution(s) from their legal and professional responsibilities. I have read the information
presented in the information letter about a study being conducted by Richard Roche, student
researcher at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge. I have had the opportunity
to ask any questions related to this study, to receive satisfactory answers to my questions, and any
additional details I wanted.
I am aware that I have the option of allowing my interview to be audio recorded to ensure an
accurate recording of my responses.
I am also aware that excerpts from the interview may be included in the thesis and/or publications
to come from this research, with the understanding that the quotations will be anonymous.
In the event that material based on this study is published, my supervisor Dr. Caroline Lanskey and
/ or other staff members at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge may also have
access to the data gathered.
I was informed that I may withdraw my consent at any time by advising the researcher.
This project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through the Institute of
Criminology, University of Cambridge. I was informed that if I have any comments or concerns
resulting from my participation in this study, I may contact Dr. Ben Crewe M.St Programme Director
or Dr. Caroline Lanskey, Supervisor at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge at +44
(0) 1223 335360.
With full knowledge of all foregoing, I agree, of my own free will, to participate in this study.
Yes
No
I agree to have my interview audio recorded.
Yes
No
I agree to the use of anonymous quotations in any thesis or publication that comes of this research.
Yes
No
71
Participant Name: ____________________________ (Please print)
Participant Signature: _________________________
Witness Name: ______________________________ (Please print)
Witness Signature: ___________________________
Date: ____________________________
72
APPENDIX VI – Governor Grade Demographics: secondary data analysis - Ages and term
of service on 11.04.12
Campus Governor
1
2
Length of
service to
date - Years
39.41
27.58
Length of
service to date Months
473 months
331 months
Length of
service to
date - Years
29.08
Length of
service to
date - Years
32.41
35.16
32.16
32.16
38.25
29.66
33.30
Length of
service to date Months
349 months
Length of
service to date Months
389 months
422 months
386 months
386 months
459 months
356 months
399.66 months
17.01.81
25.04.94
25.09.89
10.10.87
17.09.90
Length of
service to
date - Years
31.25
18.00
22.58
24.50
21.58
Length of
service to date Months
375 months
216 months
271 months
294 months
259 months
12.12.94
05.12.87
06.09.80
17.33
24.33
31.58
208 months
292 months
379 months
Length of
service to
date - Years
25.33
30.75
20.91
21.25
25.41
33.25
18.00
21.58
Length of
service to
date - Years
25.50
25.25
31.58
25.00
20.75
21.91
24.41
34.25
21.00
27.58
24.16
22.08
24.50
24.16
Length of
service to date Months
304 months
369 months
251 months
255 months
305 months
399 months
216 months
259 months
Length of
service to date Months
306 months
303 months
379 months
300 months
249 months
263 months
293 months
411 months
252 months
331 months
290 months
265 months
294 months
290 months
Date of joining
service
04.11.72
01.09.84
3
Governor I
Date of joining
service
2
05.03.83
Governor II
Date of joining
service
4
5
6
7
8
9
03.11.79
19.02.77
16.02.80
16.02.80
12.01.74
14.08.82
Mean
Governor III
10
11
12
13
14
TBA
15
16
17
Mean
Date of joining
service
Deputy Governor
Date of joining
service
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13.12.86
11.07.81
07.05.91
07.01.91
29.11.86
06.01.79
25.04.94
17.09.90
Assistant Governor
Date of joining
service
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
04.10.86
31.01.87
20.09.80
04.04.87
01.07.91
28.05.90
28.11.87
03.01.78
15.04.91
01.09.84
06.02.88
26.03.90
10.10.87
06.02.88
Date of
birth
Age
Sex
M/F
03.03.52
60.08
M
12.12.56
55.33
M
Current Location
Date of
birth
Age
Sex
M/F
Cloverhill Prison
01.07.58
53.75
M
Current Location
Date of
birth
Age
Sex
M/F
Wheatfield Prison
Limerick Prison
Castlerea Prison
Arbour Hill Prison
Midlands Prison
Cork Prison
21.03.59
24.11.56
07.07.60
04.10.59
12.07.54
13.03.56
Current Location
Date of
birth
Age
Sex
M/F
26.05.59
05.07.59
01.09.65
26.08.65
06.05.63
52.91
52.75
46.58
46.66
48.91
M
F
M
M
F
13.08.57
17.01.62
16.04.57
54.66
50.25
55.00
M
M
M
M
Current Location
Date of
birth
Age
Sex
M/F
Mountjoy Prison
St Patricks
Wheatfield Prison
Wheatfield Prison
Portlaoise Prison
Cork Prison
Limerick Prison
Castlerea Prison
15.03.65
07.11.58
22.06.67
15.01.70
03.09.63
22.05.59
21.09.67
06.05.63
47.08
53.41
44.83
42.25
48.58
52.91
44.58
48.91
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
F
Current Location
Date of
birth
Age
Sex
M/F
St Patricks
Training Unit
Wheatfield Prison
Cloverhill Prison
Midlands Prison
Midlands Prison
Portlaoise Prison
Cork Prison
Limerick Prison
Castlerea Prison
Arbour Hill
Shelton Abbey
OSG
PSEC
23.02.63
28.06.65
13.10.60
17.01.66
04.11.66
12.09.64
07.04.64
14.04.57
21.03.71
15.12.61
27.05.64
01.08.65
30.12.62
10.10.66
49.16
46.83
51.50
46.25
45.41
47.58
48.00
55.00
41.08
50.33
47.91
46.66
49.33
45.50
M
F
M
M
M
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
M
Current Location
Mountjoy Campus
Dublin West
Campus
Portlaoise Campus
Mountjoy Prison
Dochas Centre
Wheatfield Prison
Portlaoise Prison
Loughan House
Shelton Abbey
IPSTDC
OSG
PSEC
53.08
55.41
51.75
52.50
57.75
56.08
54.42
M
M
M
M
M
M
100%
M
73